In re Jewelyette M.

Summary

The court held that the governing statute does not bar a foster parent from permissively intervening in the dispositional phase of a neglect proceeding when intervention serves the child's best interests or the interests of justice. It overruled the contrary appellate precedent, restored the foster parents' intervenor status, and ordered a new revocation hearing because the trial court improperly removed them and conducted the later hearing without their lawful participation. The court also held that an eligible foster parent's statutory right to be heard ordinarily includes attendance throughout the proceeding and an opportunity to comment after hearing the evidence, although it does not include the party rights to call or cross-examine witnesses or appeal. Justice Elgo, joined by Justice D'Auria, would have rejected permissive intervention, while Justice D'Auria separately would have dismissed the matters as moot and Justice Mullins, joined in part by Justice Alexander, would have given trial courts broader control over foster-parent participation.