Facts: Mother and Father are the parents of Child. Father died. Maternal Grandparents obtained permanent guardianship of Child. Three years later, Maternal Grandparents petitioned to terminate Mother’s parental rights and adopt Child. Two weeks later, Paternal Grandparents moved to intervene so they, too, could petition to adopt Child. The trial court denied Paternal Grandparents’ motion to intervene in the adoption because they “do not meet the definition of prospective adoptive parents that is required for standing” because the Maternal Grandparents “had custody this whole time.” Paternal Grandparents appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying their motion to intervene for purposes of adoption. On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. Standing is a judge-made doctrine by which a court decides whether a party should be allowed to pursue a claim. The decision is based on whether the party has alleged a sufficiently personal stake in the outcome to justify judicial intervention. Tennessee law defines “prospective adoptive parents,” in relevant part, to mean people seeking to adopt a child who filed a petition for termination or adoption. Tennessee law also prohibits granting an adoption unless the petition says the petitioners have physical custody of the child when the petition is filed. This same law, however, includes an exception to the physical custody requirement when the petitioners have filed an intervening petition to an existing adoption petition concerning the child who is in the physical custody of the original petitioners. Thus, intervening petitioners do not have to have physical custody of the child sought to be adopted when they file their petition. The Court found the trial court erred by not letting Paternal Grandparents intervene in the adoption: Intervening petitioners are not required to have physical custody or the right to receive physical custody of the child sought to be adopted for purposes of filing their petition. For this reason, we respectfully disagree with the trial court’s legal conclusion that the [Paternal Grandparents] lacked standing to intervene in the Maternal Grandparents’ petition for termination of parental rights and adoption of [Child]. The Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the matter for further consideration as to whether the Paternal Grandparents may intervene as a matter of right or based on permissive intervention per Rule 24. K.O.’s Comment: Even though Paternal Grandparents can now file an intervening petition, the trial court has already signaled that it’s going to give significant weight to the fact that Maternal Grandparents have been raising Child for over three years. A more realistic outcome for Paternal Grandparents might be court-ordered grandparent visitation. Source: In re Lyrik L. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, January 8, 2024). If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.
Intervening Petitioners’ Standing to Terminate Parental Rights Questioned in Cookeville, Tennessee Termination and Adoption: In re Lyrik L. was last modified: January 12th, 2024 by
In this case it looks like the trial court actually got it right. I assume the Legislature didn’t want any “Tom, Dick or Harry”, being able come in at the last minute and derail/delay an adoption by filing an intervening petition. While this case involved two sets of grandparents, I don’t see anything in the rationale of the Court of Appeals that limits those who may intervene to grandparents. I think the COA should have clarified if you don’t have a RIGHT (for example court ordered visitation) then you cannot intervene “as of right” and on the “permissive” side the trial court will consider whether you have the “right” to file for grandparent visitation (do you meet one of the situations spelled out in the Grandparent Visitation statute) and the TIMELINE of the case (did you WAIT for three years, and only after TPR was filed, to seek grandparent visitation).