In re Jewelyette M.

Summary

The court held that the governing statute does not bar nonrelative foster parents from seeking permissive intervention in the dispositional phase of neglect proceedings when intervention is authorized under the applicable practice rule and serves the child's best interests. It overruled the contrary appellate precedent, restored the foster parents' intervenor status, and ordered a new revocation hearing because their removal deprived them of a lawful opportunity to participate. The court also held that an eligible nonintervening foster parent's statutory right to be heard ordinarily includes being present throughout the proceeding and commenting at an appropriate time on the evidence concerning the child's best interests, subject to reasonable modification for good cause. Separate writings disagreed over mootness, the scope of foster-parent intervention, and the extent of the statutory right to be heard: Elgo and D'Auria, dissenting, would have rejected the majority's approach, while Mullins, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have recognized intervention but construed the right to be heard more narrowly.