IN THE INTEREST OF W.C., Minor Child, J.B., Intervenor, Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, Linnea
M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.
applicant appeals the juvenile court's order denying his
request to intervene in child in need of assistance
Luana, pro se appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Whitney L. Gessner of Gessner Law Office, Decorah, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Gamble, S.J.
GAMBLE, SENIOR JUDGE
appeals the juvenile court's decision denying his request
to intervene in child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA)
proceedings. J.B. did not preserve error on his claims
regarding discovery or the recusal of the judge. We determine
the juvenile court did not err in denying J.B.'s
application to intervene. We affirm.
Background Facts & Proceedings
25, 2018, the State initiated CINA proceedings for W.C., born
in 2015. The father was listed as J.R. and the mother as P.C.
The child was removed from the mother's care and placed
with the maternal grandparents. The mother was reportedly
living with D.H., a convicted felon, at the time of the
removal. The child was adjudicated to be in need of
October 4, J.B., who formerly lived with the mother and
child, filed a pro se application to intervene in the CINA
proceedings. J.B. is not the biological father of the child.
J.B. stated the child saw him as a father figure and he
believed it would be in the child's best interest for him
to be involved in the child's life. The juvenile court
entered an order on October 11, 2018, denying the application
On October 4, 2018, [J.B.] filed a Petition to Intervene in
the case of [W.C.]. [J.B.] appeared at the hearing scheduled
for October 4, 2018. [J.B.] was given an opportunity to be
heard on the content of his motion. All parties were given an
opportunity to be heard. All the named parties resisted the
intervention of [J.B.]. The court finds that [J.B.] does not
fit into one of the categories of persons who are mandatory
intervenors. The court does not find a connection between
[J.B.] and the child that justifies intervention in this
November 20, J.B. filed a new application to intervene
through counsel, stating he had resided with the child for a
period of time and they had a close relationship. J.B. stated
he wanted to be considered as a potential placement option
for the child in the event the mother was not able to regain
custody. In the order setting the application for hearing,
the court requested legal authority for the intervention of a
non-relative. The mother filed a resistance to the
application to intervene, noting J.B. did not have a
biological relationship with the child and had not been
involved with the child for a substantial period of time.
hearing on the matter was held on January 31, 2019. J.B.
testified he and the mother "were together for a couple
months, living together," in late 2017 to early 2018. He
stated even after the mother moved, he kept relations with
the child "for some time after that." J.B.
testified, "I feel I became like a father figure to him,
and I see him as, you know, not my biological son, but as my
son." He stated he wanted to resume regular visitation
and potentially be considered as a placement option. J.B.
submitted an affidavit from his aunt, stating J.B. had a
close relationship with the child. J.B. also ...