In re Jewelyette M. — dissenting

Summary

The dissent would have held that nonrelative foster parents may not permissively intervene in neglect proceedings because their statutory role is limited to being heard and commenting on the child's best interests. It reasons that intervention would risk improper comparisons with biological parents, interfere with reunification efforts, and delay permanency, while foster-parent interests are adequately represented by existing parties. The dissent also would have denied the writ of error, concluding that the foster parents received the statutory opportunity to be heard. Other separate writings disagreed over mootness, the rarity of permissive intervention, and the scope of the foster parents' right to be heard.