In Re Children of Krystal W.

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2025 ME 91
Docket: Yor-24-552
Argued: May 6, 2025
Decided: September 30, 2025

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, DOUGLAS, and LIPEZ, JJ. *
Majority: MEAD, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, DOUGLAS, and LIPEZ, JJ.
Dissent: STANFILL, C.J.

IN RE CHILDREN OF KRYSTAL W.

DOUGLAS, J.

[¶1] Pursuant to the Child and Family Services and Child Protection Act,

22 M.R.S. §§ 4001 to 4099-P (2025) (the Child Protection Act), the Department

of Health and Human Services placed two children in its custody with a husband

and wife as resource parents pending the conclusion of an ongoing child

protection proceeding. After the Department subsequently removed the

children from their care nineteen months later, the former resource parents

filed motions seeking to intervene in the protective custody case and requesting

an expedited judicial review of the children’s placement. The District Court

(Springvale and Biddeford, Duddy, J.) entered orders denying the motions, and

the former resource parents appealed. Because we conclude that the orders

are not appealable, we dismiss the appeal.

* Although Justice Horton participated in the appeal, he retired before this opinion was certified.
2

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] The children entered Department custody after the Department

initiated child protection proceedings against the children’s parents in 2020

and 2021. The Department eventually filed petitions to terminate the parents’

parental rights, and the court held a final hearing on the petitions in March

2023. The court entered judgments terminating the parents’ parental rights;

the parents did not appeal.

[¶3] In February 2023, one month before the final hearing on the

petitions to terminate the parents’ parental rights, the Department placed the

children with the former resource parents. Then, on September 12, 2024, the

Department removed the children from their care after receiving a report from

the older child’s school about an incident involving the husband.

[¶4] On October 31, 2024, the former resource parents filed a motion

pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4005-D(1)(D) (2025) and M.R. Civ. P. 24 to intervene in

the child protection proceeding. They asserted that they are licensed foster

parents, that the children had lived with them for nineteen months, and that

they are in the process of filing petitions to adopt the children. They argued

that having intervenor status would ensure that their “legal interests” are

protected. They also filed a motion seeking an expedited judicial review of the
3

children’s placement. The motion offered an explanation of the circumstances

leading to the children’s removal from their care.

[¶5] The Department opposed the motions, arguing that the request for

intervention was unnecessary and contrary to the children’s best interests, and

that it also would frustrate the purposes of the Child Protection Act, see 22

M.R.S. § 4003 (2025). The Department provided its account of the

circumstances that led to the children’s removal and expressed other concerns

about the children’s care in the home.

[¶6] On November 6, 2024, the court summarily denied the motions, and

the former resource parents timely appealed. We directed the parties to

address the justiciability of the appeal given that the orders from which they

seek to appeal are not among those orders expressly designated as appealable

under 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2025).

II. DISCUSSION

[¶7] The right to appeal a Title 22 child protection order is “purely

statutory.” In re Dustin C., 2008 ME 89, ¶ 6, 952 A.2d 993 (quotation marks

omitted). “The Legislature, in granting a right to appeal in certain cases, may

restrict, limit or otherwise condition its availability as it sees fit.” Id. (quotation

marks omitted).
4

[¶8] Title 22 M.R.S. § 4006 expressly limits the right of appeal from

orders entered in child protection matters. Section 4006 provides:

A party aggrieved by an order of a court entered pursuant to
section 4035, 4054 or 4071 may appeal directly to the Supreme
Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court, and such appeals are
governed by the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Appeals from any order under section 4035, 4054 or 4071
must be expedited. Any attorney appointed to represent a party in
a District Court proceeding under this chapter shall continue to
represent that client in any appeal unless otherwise ordered by the
court.

Orders entered under this chapter under sections other than
section 4035, 4054 or 4071 are interlocutory and are not appealable.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶9] Indeed, we have specifically recognized that “[p]ursuant to 22 M.R.S.

§ 4006, only three types of orders may be appealed in child protection matters:

a jeopardy order [under section 4035], a judgment terminating parental rights

[under section 4054], and a medical treatment order [under section 4071]. Any

other Title 22 order is not justiciable.” In re Child of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152,

¶ 28, 218 A.3d 247 (emphasis added); see also In re Kristy Y., 2000 ME 98, ¶ 12,

752 A.2d 166 (“All appeals in child protective cases except those specifically

authorized by 22 M.R.S.A. § 4006 are interlocutory appeals.”).
5

[¶10] The former resource parents are appealing the denial of two

motions—their motion for expedited judicial review and their motion to

intervene in the child protection proceeding. Clearly, both are “[o]rders

entered under [the child protection] chapter [of Title 22] other than section

4035, 4054 or 4071” and are therefore “interlocutory and . . . not appealable.”

22 M.R.S. § 4006. Moreover, as to the appeal from the denial of their motion for

expedited judicial review, it is well settled that judicial review orders in general

and dispositional orders in particular are interlocutory and not appealable.

See In re Child of Nicholas G., 2021 ME 48, ¶ 5, 259 A.3d 783; In re Corey T., 2018

ME 20, ¶ 1 n.2, 178 A.3d 1238 (citing In re Z.S., 2015 ME 110, ¶ 8, 121 A.3d

1286). The question presented here is whether an appeal will lie from the

denial of a motion to intervene despite section 4006’s clear limitation of

appeals from Title 22 child protection orders.

[¶11] Relying on our decision in In re N.W., 2013 ME 64, ¶ 7, 70 A.3d

1219, the former resource parents contend that we should consider the appeal

of the court’s denial of their motion to intervene because it falls under the death

knell exception to the final judgment rule. In that case, a relative filed a motion

to intervene in a child protection proceeding pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 24, which
6

is expressly referenced in 22 M.R.S. § 4005-D(5).1 The trial court denied the

motion. On appeal, we affirmed the order denying the motion and stated,

without elaboration, that an appeal from the denial of a motion to intervene is

permissible under an exception to the final judgment rule, citing State v.

MaineHealth, 2011 ME 115, ¶ 7, 31 A.3d 911.2 In re N.W., 2013 ME 64, ¶¶ 1, 6-7,

70 A.3d 1219.

[¶12] One year following our decision in In re N.W., however, we clarified

that where the Legislature has unequivocally specified that only certain orders

in child protection matters are appealable, we lack authority to circumvent the

1 Title 22 M.R.S. § 4005-D(5) (2025) provides:

An intervenor may participate in any court proceeding under this chapter as a party
as provided by the court when granting intervenor status under Maine Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 24. An intervenor has the rights of a party as ordered by the court in
granting intervenor status, including the right to present or cross-examine witnesses,
present evidence and have access to pleadings and records.

“Intervenor” is defined as “a person who is granted intervenor status in a child protective
proceeding pursuant to the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24, as long as intervention is
consistent with section 4003.” Id. § 4005-D(1)(D).

2 State v. MaineHealth did not involve a child protection proceeding but rather an antitrust action

filed by the State against MaineHealth, Maine Medical Center, and two affiliated physician practices.
2011 ME 115, ¶¶ 1-2, 31 A.3d 911. A competing hospital had filed a motion to intervene in the action,
and following its denial took an interlocutory appeal, which we entertained, stating, “we have
recognized an exception to the final judgment rule for appeals challenging the denial of a motion to
intervene.” Id. ¶ 7. We have recognized that in civil cases generally, an appeal from the denial of a
motion to intervene may fall within one of the judicially created exceptions to the final judgment rule.
See generally Alexander, Maine Appellate Practice § 304(a) (6th ed. 2022); 2 Harvey, Maine Civil
Practice § 24:1 at 607 (2011); Davis v. Anderson, 2008 ME 125, ¶ 9, 953 A.2d 1166; Francis v.
Dana-Cummings, 2007 ME 16, ¶ 15, 915 A.2d 412; Donna C. v. Kalamaras, 485 A.2d 222, 223
(Me. 1984). Here, as discussed above and recognized by In re L.R., 2014 ME 95, ¶¶ 5-9, 97 A.3d 602,
we are dealing with an express statutory limitation on interlocutory appeals.
7

statute by establishing exceptions for interlocutory appeals not permitted by

section 4006. See In re L.R., 2014 ME 95, ¶¶ 5-9, 97 A.3d 602. In that case, the

child’s grandmother appealed from the denial of a motion for kinship

placement pursuant to former 22 M.R.S. § 4005-E(2) (2013). The trial court

denied the motion, finding that the requested placement would not be in the

child’s best interest. Id. ¶ 4. We dismissed the appeal, holding that “[b]ecause

the final judgment rule is a judicially created prudential rule, we may fashion

exceptions to it,” but we do not have the authority “to apply judge-made

exceptions to statutory provisions.” Id. ¶ 9.

[¶13] The Department argues that the reasoning of In re L.R. applies

equally to an appeal from an order denying a motion to intervene and urges us

to clarify the issue in light of what appears to be a conflict in our caselaw. 3 It is

the Department’s position that, consistent with In re L.R., our appellate

jurisdiction and power to review interlocutory appeals of orders in child

3 It appears that we have addressed appeals from motions to intervene in child protection
proceedings four times in addition to In re N.W. and the instant appeal. Two cases were decided prior
to In re L.R.. See In re N.W., 2013 ME 64, ¶ 7, 70 A.3d 1219 (affirming the denial of a motion to
intervene after applying, without discussing, an exception to the final judgment rule); In re
Nickayla P., Mem-09-141 (Aug. 4, 2009) (affirming the court’s grant of a motion to intervene over the
parents’ objection after their parental rights had been terminated). Two cases were decided after
In re L.R., although neither references that decision. See In re Child of Charles H., Mem-18-100
(Dec. 11, 2018) (affirming denial of motion to intervene without addressing justiciability); In re
Children of Mary J., 2019 ME 2, ¶ 17, 199 A.3d 231 (affirming the denial of a motion to intervene
raising jurisdictional issue).
8

protection matters “are entirely and exclusively those plainly conferred by

statute.” Id. We agree.

[¶14] The appeal of an order denying a motion to intervene in an ongoing

child protection matter is indisputably interlocutory. The judicially created

exception to the final judgment rule simply does not apply because, as we held

in In re L.R., we lack authority to override section 4006’s express limitation on

interlocutory appeals of child protection orders and “cannot substitute our

judgment for that of the Legislature.” 2014 ME 95, ¶¶ 5, 9, 97 A.3d 602.

[¶15] Our determination that section 4006’s plain, unambiguous

language strictly limits appeals from orders in child protection proceedings and

our express recognition of the Legislature’s prerogative to do so ordinarily

would suffice to settle the question presented. However, to dispel any lingering

uncertainty occasioned by section 4005-D(5)’s reference to Rule 24 as well as

by our own uneven treatment of the issue in the past, we take this opportunity

to examine the matter more closely. Indeed, a review of the pertinent

legislative history confirms that the Legislature deliberately narrowed the

scope of appellate review of child protective orders—and has maintained that

narrow scope—even as it continued to redefine the procedural and
9

participatory rights of nonparties in child protection proceedings—including

by way of intervention pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4005-D(5).

[¶16] When the Legislature first enacted the Child and Family Services

and Child Protection Act in 1979, the statute set out a general right of appeal

from orders in child protection cases. See P.L. 1979, ch. 733, § 18 (effective

July 3, 1980) (“A party aggrieved by an order of a court under [the Child and

Family Services and Child Protection Act] may appeal to the Superior Court in

accordance with the District Court Civil Rules.”4). Several changes were made

to section 4006 in 1984. First, appeals were to be taken “directly to the

Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court” instead of to the Superior

Court. P.L. 1983, ch. 772, § 3 (effective July 25, 1984). Second, the statute as

amended mandated that “[a]ppeals from any order under this chapter shall be

expedited” and “[a]ny attorney appointed to represent a party in a District

Court proceeding under this chapter shall continue to represent that client in

any appeal unless otherwise ordered by the court.” Id. The purpose of these

amendments was “to expedite the appellate process for children” in order to

4 The reference to “the District Court Civil Rules” was subsequently changed to “the Maine Rules
of Civil Procedure,” with a further clarification that this was intended to refer specifically to Rules 72
through 76B of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, the rules governing all appeals from the District
Court to the Superior Court. See P.L. 1997, ch. 715, § A-3 (effective June 30, 1998) (codified at
22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2024)). The reference to “the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure” was more recently
replaced with “the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure.” See P.L. 2023, ch. 638, § 25 (effective Aug. 9,
2024).
10

shorten the time that children “remain[] in the same inpermanent [sic] and

unacceptable situation which led to the petition for termination of parental

rights in the first place.” L.D. 2166, Statement of Fact (111th Legis. 1984).

[¶17] In 1997, the Legislature repealed and replaced section 4006 as

part of a broader reform effort that sought to further expedite child protection

proceedings.5 P.L. 1997, ch. 715, § A-3 (effective June 30, 1998) (“An Act to

Require Expeditious Action in Child Protection Cases”). As amended, section

4006 took on its current form that limits appeals to the three specific orders

identified above—jeopardy orders pursuant to section 4035; judgments

terminating parental rights pursuant to section 4054; and medical treatment

orders pursuant to section 4071—and declared that all other orders entered

under Chapter 1071 of Title 22 “are interlocutory and are not appealable.” The

prohibition against appealing interlocutory orders was consistent with the

Legislature’s “paramount concern” of protecting “the health and safety of

children” by, among other things, “promot[ing] the early establishment of

A committee convened by then Chief Justice Daniel Wathen assessed the general state of child
5

protection proceedings in Maine and issued a report offering recommendations for improvement.
See Report of the Committee to Study the Role of the Courts in Protecting Children (Mar. 1997). The
committee found that “[c]learly there are delays that occur at every point of the appellate process”
and that “Maine is not alone in experiencing an increase in the number of appeals taken from Orders
entered in child protective cases, particularly Termination of Parental Rights Orders.” Id. at 54. The
revision to 22 M.R.S. § 4006 strictly limiting the types of Title 22 orders that may be appealed and
mandating that appeals be expedited appears to be a direct response to the committee’s concerns
about delays in the process.
11

permanent plans for the care and custody of children who cannot be returned

to their family” and “prevent[ing] needless delay” in the development of such

plans. 22 M.R.S. § 4003(3)-(4).

[¶18] It is against this backdrop of constricting rights to appellate review

that we must view the Legislature’s ongoing efforts to refine provisions

addressing who may have access to and participate in child protective

proceedings, and to what extent. In 1985, for example, foster parents were

authorized to petition for intervenor status in a proceeding involving a child

who was currently living with them and had been residing in the home for at

least one year. P.L. 1985, ch. 424 (effective Sept. 19, 1985) (codified at former

22 M.R.S.A. §-4005-A). In 1994, the grandparent of a child was authorized to

petition to intervene in a proceeding involving the child. See P.L. 1993, ch. 697,

§ 1 (effective July 14, 1994) (codified at former 22 M.R.S.A. § 4005-B). In 1997,

as part of the same legislative reforms limiting section 4006 appeal rights, the

Legislature granted foster parents and other caregivers rights of notice of

judicial review and other hearings, and rights to testify in those hearings but

not to call other witnesses, present other evidence, attend any other portion of

the hearing, or have access to pleadings or records. See P.L. 1997, ch. 715, § B-5

(effective June 30, 1998) (codified at former 22 M.R.S.A. § 4005-C).
12

[¶19] Then in 2002, based on recommendations of a committee formed

to further study the child protective system,6 the Legislature overhauled the

provisions governing access to and participation in child protection

proceedings. Because numerous bills had been introduced addressing

nonparty participation rights,7 the committee attempted to harmonize the bills

in considering the proper scope of participatory rights, including “[t]he

appropriate role of intervenors; who, if anyone, should have automatic

intervenor status; who should be permitted to apply for intervenor status; and

what criteria the court should use in determining whether to grant intervenor

status.” Final Report of the Committee to Review the Child Protective System,

App. A at 2 (Dec. 2001).

[¶20] As a result, the Legislature repealed the then-existing provisions

governing nonparty participation, including those providing for petitions for

intervention, set out in 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 4005-A, 4005-B, and 4005-C, and enacted

6 The committee was formed in response to “tremendous concern that the existing child
protective laws and system are not adequately and consistently protecting the children they were
designed to serve” and because “families and other participants in the system believe their rights and
interests are not adequately and consistently taken into account.” H.P. 1385 (120th Legis. 2001);
see also Final Report of the Committee to Review the Child Protective System, App. A at 1 (Dec. 2001);
L.D. 1793 (120th Legis. 2001).

7 Among the bills addressing this issue were those that proposed to allow godparents to petition

for intervenor status, give foster parents automatic intervenor status in all cases, and provide
long-term foster parents the right to intervene in any proceeding in which parental rights have been
terminated. Final Report of the Committee to Review the Child Protective System at 14 (Dec. 2001).
13

in their place the current, comprehensive framework in 22 M.R.S. § 4005-D

(2025) governing access to and participation in child protection proceedings.

See P.L. 2001, ch. 696, § 16 (effective July 25, 2002). Rather than determine

intervenor status based strictly on a petitioner’s relationship to the child (such

as foster parent, grandparent, or other caregiver), the Legislature “eliminat[ed]

special provisions for certain persons who seek intervenor status”; established

three tiers of nonparty participation in child protection proceedings, including

intervention as a full party in the matter; and adopted a single standard—Maine

Rule of Civil Procedure 24—as the standard governing consideration of a

request to intervene.8 See L.D. 2149, Summary (120th Legis. 2002).

8 Section 4005-D establishes three levels of nonparty participation in a child protection
proceeding. An “interested person” may observe court proceedings but has no opportunity to speak
during the proceeding. See 22 M.R.S. § 4005-D(3) (2025). A court may grant “interested person”
status to any person who the court determines has “a substantial relationship with a child or a
substantial interest in the child’s well-being, based on the type, strength and duration of the
relationship or interest,” id. § 4005-D(1)(C), but “[u]pon request . . . shall designate a foster parent,
grandparent, preadoptive parent or a relative of a child as an interested person unless the court finds
good cause not to do so,” id. § 4005-D(2); see also L.D. 2149, Summary at 19-20 (120th Legis. 2002)
(expressing the Legislature’s intent that foster parents, grandparents, preadoptive parents and a
relative of the child by blood relation or marriage be accorded such status). A “participant” is a
person who qualifies as an “interested person” but may be granted the additional “right to be heard
in any court proceeding” upon demonstrating that it “is in the best interests of the child and
consistent with section 4003,” which sets out the purposes of the Child Protection Act. 22 M.R.S.
§ 4005-D(1)(E), (4). An “intervenor” is accorded full party status, including the rights to access
pleadings and records, present evidence, present witnesses, and cross-examine witnesses. Id.
§ 4005-D(1)(D), (5).

The determination of “intervenor status,” though made in accordance with Rule 24, is also subject
to the court’s determination that “intervention is consistent with section 4003.” Id. § 4005-D(1)(D).
Contrary to the dissent’s artificial distinction between “interested person” and “participant” status
on the one hand and “intervenor” status on the other, section 4005-D clearly establishes a unified
framework for determining nonparty access and participation along a spectrum that affords
14

[¶21] Despite section 4005-D(5)’s reference to Rule 24 as the standard

by which to gauge requests for intervention in child protection proceedings, the

Legislature made no further attempt to authorize interlocutory appeals from

denials of intervention requests. An order “granting [or denying] intervenor

status under Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24,” 22 M.R.S. § 4005-D(5), is

nonetheless an order “entered under this chapter [1071 of Title 22].” 22 M.R.S.

§ 4006 (emphasis added). We discern no intent on the part of the Legislature

to override the express limitation on appeals of interlocutory orders in section

4006.

[¶22] Contrary to the dissent’s perspective, our decision today does not

“revers[e] course”; nor does it “change our jurisprudence.” Dissenting Opinion

¶¶ 29, 39. To be sure, our jurisprudence includes In re L.R., which held that

section 4006 unequivocally deems all but the three specified orders therein as

“interlocutory and . . . not appealable,” and we lack authority “to apply

judge-made exceptions to statutory provisions.” 2014 ME 95, ¶¶ 5, 9, 97 A.3d

602. As noted above, see supra n.3, apart from this case, only twice since

progressively greater participation in the proceeding depending upon whether one is granted status
as an “interested person,” a “participant,” or an “intervenor.” Moreover, there is no express provision
for an interlocutory appeal when a request for participation is denied at any of the three levels, even
though the denial of participant status may be equally if not more prejudicial than denial of full
intervenor status, particularly when it concerns a request from one who already is an “interested
person,” such as a foster parent, grandparent, or other relative of the child.
15

In re L.R. was decided have we entertained an appeal involving the denial of a

motion to intervene in a child protection proceeding. See In re Children of

Mary J., 2019 ME 2, ¶ 17, 199 A.3d 231; In re Child of Charles H., Mem-18-100

(Dec. 11, 2018). Neither case referenced In re L.R., nor does it appear that the

question of justiciability was presented as an issue for consideration (although

In re Children of Mary J. does make a general reference to the “recognized . . .

exception to the final judgment rule for appeals challenging the denial of a

motion to intervene,” citing State v. MaineHealth, 2011 ME 115, ¶ 7, 31 A.3d

911, which, as noted, see supra n.2, did not involve an appeal of a child

protection order). In re Children of Mary J., 2019 ME 2, ¶ 5, n.3, 199 A.3d 231.9

[¶23] Moreover, the dissent’s reliance on three cases as the basis for its

conclusion that an order denying intervention is “not an order ‘entered under’

the Child Protection Act” is misplaced. See Dissenting Opinion ¶¶ 32-35, 39.

None of the cases involved an interlocutory appeal from a motion to intervene

and none are necessarily inconsistent with our holding today. See In re Child of

9 Although In re Children of Mary J. discusses whether the intervention request in that case was a

request for intervention of right under Rule 24(a) or a request for permissible intervention under
Ruel 24(b), we note that every request for intervention in a child protection proceeding is effectively
a request for permissible intervention because even if a party satisfies the standard in Rule 24(a), the
trial court retains discretion to determine whether the request is consistent with the purposes of the
Child and Family Services and Child Protection Act, see 22 M.R.S. §§ 4003, 4005-D(1)(D). This further
supports our view that orders on motions to intervene in child protection proceedings are “[o]rders
entered under this chapter [1071 the Child and Family Services and Child Protection Act]” even
though Rule 24 provides the standard by which intervention requests are judged.
16

Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152, ¶ 29, 218 A.3d 247 (holding that father’s appeal of

parentage determination made in the course of a protective custody proceeding

was justiciable “because it [was] from a final judgment that was entered

pursuant to the MPA and is not itself a Title 22 order” (emphasis added)); In re

Children of Shirley T., 2019 ME 1, ¶¶ 10-26, 199 A.3d 221 (entertaining an

appeal from an order on a motion to transfer jurisdiction of a child protection

proceeding to a tribal court pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act and

specifically noting that “[o]ur consideration of this appeal does not conflict with

our prior decisions holding that only jeopardy orders, termination of parental

rights judgments, and medical treatment orders may be appealed pursuant to

22 M.R.S. § 4006” and “[t]he decision at issue here is not a child protection order

issued pursuant to title 22; it is instead a jurisdictional order entered pursuant

to ICWA” (emphasis added)); In re Jacob C., 2009 ME 10, ¶¶ 7-14, 965 A.2d 47

(determining that section 4006 did not preclude appellate review because the

appeal was neither interlocutory nor taken from a child protection order but

rather from a final judgment adjudicating parentage “issued pursuant to title

19-A, not title 22” (emphasis added)).

[¶24] Had the Legislature intended to establish another exception for

interlocutory appeals in section 4006 it could have done so—but it did not.
17

Instead, the limitation on appeals to those from the three orders identified in

the statute has remained unchanged since 1997. This is consistent with

Chapter 1071’s objective of promoting timely resolution of child protection

matters so as to achieve permanency and stability for children as expeditiously

as feasible.

[¶25] The Legislature has the prerogative to amend the statute if it

wishes to expand or alter the scope of appellate review with respect to this or

any other interlocutory order entered in a child protective proceeding. Its

refusal to do so to date leads us to conclude that this appeal is not permitted.

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

STANFILL, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

[¶26] I concur in the dismissal of the appeal from the order denying the

former resource parents’ motion for an expedited hearing. That order is not

reviewable, and thus the portion of the appeal challenging that order must be

dismissed. See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2025). Because I believe that the order

denying the former resource parents’ motion to intervene is appealable,
18

however, I would review that order and affirm the denial of intervention on the

merits. For this reason, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s Opinion

dismissing the appeal to the extent that it challenges that order.

[¶27] Although the denial of a motion to intervene is undoubtedly an

interlocutory order, we have long followed the federal approach and concluded

that this type of order is immediately appealable as an exception to the final

judgment rule. See, e.g., Donna C. v. Kalamaras, 485 A.2d 222, 223 (Me. 1984);

State v. MaineHealth, 2011 ME 115, ¶ 7, 31 A.3d 911.

[¶28] Despite the provisions of 22 M.R.S. § 4006, we have treated child

protection cases no differently than other civil cases, and we have reviewed

orders on intervention motions in child protection appeals on multiple

occasions. See In re Children of Mary J., 2019 ME 2, ¶¶ 5 n.3, 6-18, 199 A.3d 231

(expressly applying an exception to the final judgment rule and affirming the

denial of a motion to intervene); In re N.W., 2013 ME 64, ¶¶ 7-15, 70 A.3d 1219

(same); In re Child of Charles H., Mem-18-100 (Dec. 11, 2018) (affirming the

denial of a motion to intervene); In re Nickayla P., Mem-09-141 (Aug. 4, 2009)

(affirming the grant of a motion to intervene over the parents’ objection).

[¶29] Notwithstanding that history, the Court is now reversing course,

asserting that 22 M.R.S. § 4006 requires we do so. I disagree.
19

[¶30] Section 4006 limits the kinds of child protective orders that are

appealable to orders entered under 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2025) (jeopardy),

22 M.R.S. § 4054 (2025) (termination of parental rights), or 22 M.R.S. § 4071

(2025) (medical treatment). 22 M.R.S. § 4006. It specifically states that other

“[o]rders entered under this chapter” are interlocutory and are not appealable.

Id. (emphasis added).

[¶31] We have said that we cannot craft exceptions to section 4006. In re

L.R., 2014 ME 95, ¶¶ 4, 9, 97 A.3d 602 (dismissing an appeal from an order

denying a motion for kinship placement filed under 22 M.R.S. § 4005-E(2)

(2013)). But we have also made clear that section 4006 does not bar all appeals

other than jeopardy, termination, and medical treatment orders just because

the order appealed from was entered in a child protection case. E.g., In re Child

of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152, ¶¶ 28-29, 218 A.3d 247.

[¶32] For example, we have held that a final determination of parental

rights authorized by a child protection statute and entered as part of a child

protection proceeding is reviewable on appeal notwithstanding section 4006.

In re Jacob C., 2009 ME 10, ¶¶ 7-14, 965 A.2d 47. We rejected the argument that

because the parental rights order was entered pursuant to 22 M.R.S.

§ 4036(1-A) (2008), appellate review was unavailable according to section
20

4006. Id. Instead, we explained that “[a] careful reading of” section 4036(1-A)

showed “that the judgment was issued pursuant to title 19-A, not title 22.” Id.

¶ 13. Therefore, although the parentage determination was specifically

authorized by 22 M.R.S. § 4036(1-A), “the provisions of title 19-A, not title 22,

govern[ed],” and section 4006 did not preclude appellate review.10 Id.

[¶33] Similarly, in In re Child of Nicholas P., addressing the question

“whether a parentage determination entered in a child protection action can be

properly appealed,” we said:

As we have recognized, an order entered in the context of a
child protection case, but which is not itself an order entered
pursuant to the Child and Family Services and Child Protection Act,
may be cognizable on appeal despite the limitations created by
section 4006. A parentage determination, even when it is part of a
child protection proceeding, is not governed by Title 22 but rather
by the [Maine Parentage Act]. The father’s parentage appeal is
therefore justiciable because it is from a final judgment that was
entered pursuant to the [Maine Parentage Act] and is not itself a
Title 22 order.

In re Child of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152, ¶¶ 28-29, 218 A.3d 247 (citations

omitted).

10 The version of 22 M.R.S. § 4036(1-A) that we examined in In re Jacob C., which remains the same

today in all relevant respects, authorized a trial court to enter—upon the request of a parent and in
a child protection proceeding—an order governing parental rights and responsibilities “pursuant to
Title 19-A, section 1653 if the court determines that the order will protect the child from jeopardy
and is in the child’s best interest as defined in Title 19-A, section 1653, subsection 3.” 22 M.R.S.
§ 4036(1-A) (2008); see In re Jacob C., 2009 ME 10, ¶¶ 5 & n.4, 7, 13, 965 A.2d 47; 22 M.R.S.
§ 4036(1-A) (2025).
21

[¶34] In another case, we reached the merits of an appeal from the denial

of a motion to transfer jurisdiction of a child protection matter to a tribal court.

In re Children of Shirley T., 2019 ME 1, ¶¶ 10-26, 199 A.3d 221. We specifically

noted that such review was not precluded by section 4006 because “[t]he

decision at issue [was] not a child protection order issued pursuant to title 22;

it [was] instead a jurisdictional order entered pursuant to [the Indian Child

Welfare Act].” Id. ¶ 15 n.6.

[¶35] These cases consistently hold that when the order appealed from

is entered in a child protection case but is governed by standards codified in

another statute or rule, it is not an order “entered under” the Child Protection

Act for purposes of 22 M.R.S. § 4006. The Court relies on In re L.R., 2014 ME 95,

¶ 9, 97 A.3d 602, as barring this appeal, Court’s Opinion ¶¶ 12-14, but after we

issued In re L.R., we decided Nicholas P., Shirley T., and at least two cases

reviewing orders on intervention motions in child protection cases—the exact

posture presented here. See In re Children of Mary J., 2019 ME 2, ¶¶ 5 & n.3,

17-18, 199 A.3d 231; In re Child of Charles H., Mem-18-100 (Dec. 11, 2018). The

Court today takes up the Department’s request to “clarify” our prior decisions

by overruling them, an unwarranted change of course.
22

[¶36] Unlike orders on placement requests or motions to expedite

review, an order granting or denying a motion to intervene is “entered in the

context of a child protection case, but [] is not itself an order entered pursuant

to the Child and Family Services and Child Protection Act,” In re Child of

Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152, ¶ 29, 218 A.3d 247. Like the parentage determination

at issue in Nicholas P. that was governed not by the Child Protection Act but

rather by the Maine Parentage Act, a decision on a motion to intervene, even

when issued as part of a child protection proceeding, is governed not by the

Child Protection Act but rather by Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 24. See id.

[¶37] This is borne out by the language used in the Child Protection Act.

“Participants” and “interested persons” in child protective cases are indeed

creatures of the Child Protection Act as opposed to rules of procedure or

general law. See 22 M.R.S. § 4005-D(1)(C), (E), (2)-(4), (7) (2025). The Child

Protection Act alone defines who may qualify for “interested person” or

“participant” status and the nature of the rights those individuals have.11 Id.

11 The Child Protection Act permits the court to grant “interested person” status to individuals as

follows:

2. Interested persons. Upon request, the court shall designate a foster
parent, grandparent, preadoptive parent or a relative of a child as an interested
person unless the court finds good cause not to do so. The court may also grant
interested person status to other individuals who have a significant relationship to
the child, including, but not limited to, teachers, coaches, counselors or a person who
has provided or is providing care for the child.
23

Thus, an appeal from the denial of a request for participant or interested-

person status would appear to be barred by section 4006, even if an exception

to our judge-made final judgment rule would otherwise apply. See In re Child

of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152, ¶¶ 28-29, 218 A.3d 247.

[¶38] In contrast, the statutory provisions concerning intervenor status

in child protection proceedings make clear that Maine Rule of Civil Procedure

24—rather than the Child Protection Act —sets forth the standard to determine

whether to grant intervention in child protection matters. See 22 M.R.S.

§ 4005-D(1)(D), (5) (2025). The statute addressing access to and participation

in child protection proceedings defines “intervenor” as “a person who is

granted intervenor status in a child protective proceeding pursuant to the

Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24, as long as intervention is consistent with

section 4003.” Id. § 4005-D(1)(D) (emphasis added). In addition,

[a]n intervenor may participate in any court proceeding under this
chapter as a party as provided by the court when granting intervenor

22 M.R.S. § 4005-D(2) (2025). In another subsection of the same statute, the Legislature has defined
an “interested person” as “a person the court has determined as having a substantial relationship
with a child or a substantial interest in the child’s well-being, based on the type, strength and duration
of the relationship or interest.” Id. § 4005-D(1)(C) (2025). Similarly, the statute defines a
“participant” as “a person who is designated as an interested person under paragraph C and who
demonstrates to the court that designation as a participant is in the best interests of the child and
consistent with section 4003.” Id. § 4005-D(1)(E) (2025).

Participants and interested persons both have the right to attend and observe all court
proceedings under the chapter; participants also have the right to be heard. Id. § 4005-D(3), (4).
24

status under Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24. An intervenor
has the rights of a party as ordered by the court in granting
intervenor status, including the right to present or cross-examine
witnesses, present evidence and have access to pleadings and
records.

Id. § 4005-D(5) (emphasis added).

[¶39] The Court examines legislative history in support of its holding,

and yet the legislative history of this particular provision of the statute does not

support the conclusion. In 2002, the Legislature enacted “the current,

comprehensive framework in 22 M.R.S. § 4005-D (2025) governing access to

and participation in child protection proceedings.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 20;

see P.L. 2001, ch. 696, § 16 (effective July 25, 2002). Before that, the statute had

provided that foster parents and grandparents could petition for intervenor

status. See P.L. 1985, ch. 424 (effective Sept. 19, 1985) (enacting former

22 M.R.S.A. § 4005-A); P.L. 1993, ch. 697, § 1 (effective July 14, 1994) (enacting

former 22 M.R.S.A. § 4005-B). In other words, the standards governing

intervenor status were set forth in and unique to the Child Protection Act. With

the changes made in 2002, the Legislature repealed those statutory standards

and instead determined that whether to grant intervenor status should be

decided under the general provisions of Rule 24.12 P.L. 2001, ch. 696, § 16; see

12Although the relevant child protection statute requires that intervention must also be
“consistent with” the purposes of the Child Protection Act, 22 M.R.S. § 4005-D(1)(D) (2025); see id.
25

22 M.R.S. § 4005-D(1)(D), (5). By incorporating Rule 24 as the standard, review

of a decision on a motion to intervene is not precluded by section 4006 because

“[t]he decision at issue . . . is not a child protection order issued pursuant to title

22; it is instead a[n] order entered pursuant to” Rule 24. In re Children of

Shirley T., 2019 ME 1, ¶ 15 n.6, 199 A.3d 221; see In re Jacob C., 2009 ME 10,

¶¶ 7-8, 13-14, 965 A.2d 47 (relying in part on the relevant child protection

statute’s direct references to Title 19-A standards in concluding that a parental

rights order entered in a child protection proceeding was appealable

notwithstanding section 4006’s limitations); In re Child of Nicholas P., 2019 ME

152, ¶¶ 27-30, 218 A.3d 247. Given that the order denying the former resource

parents’ motion to intervene is not an order “entered under” the Child

Protection Act, 22 M.R.S. § 4006, there is no reason to change our jurisprudence

recognizing that such orders are immediately appealable as an exception to the

final judgment rule.

[¶40] Although I would not dismiss the appeal, I think the appeal is

meritless and would affirm the trial court’s denial of the former resource

parents’ motion to intervene. The former resource parents have no right to

§ 4003 (2025), Rule 24 itself requires that intervention be denied if “the applicant’s interest is
adequately represented by existing parties” or if it “will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication
of the rights of the original parties,” M.R. Civ. P. 24(a)-(b).
26

intervene under Rule 24(a), nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny them

permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).

[¶41] Rule 24(a) permits a person to intervene “when the applicant

claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of

the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may

as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that

interest.” M.R. Civ. P. 24(a); see In re Children of Mary J., 2019 ME 2, ¶ 6,

199 A.3d 231. Intervention is “allowed only when the intervenor will either

gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.” Brown v.

Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Hampden, 391 A.2d 348, 349 (Me. 1978) (quotation

marks omitted); see also 2 Harvey, Maine Civil Practice § 24:1 at 605 (3d Ed.

2011) (noting that Rule 24 did not change the law but was based on

long-standing principles of equity).

[¶42] Although the former resource parents may be “interested” in the

proceeding in the sense that they care greatly about what happens, they have

no legally cognizable interest in the child protection case. Any order in the case

has no direct legal operation or effect on them. If the former resource parents

wish to pursue adoption of the children, that must happen in a separate case,

and that is their avenue of relief.
27

[¶43] In short, I see no reason to change course in our jurisprudence. I

would reach the merits of the appeal from the denial of the intervention motion,

but I would nonetheless affirm the District Court’s decision.

Brittany Sawyer, Esq. (orally), Holmes Legal Group, LLC, Wells, for appellants
former resource parents

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen.
(orally), Office of the Attorney General, Bangor, for appellee Department of
Health and Human Services

Biddeford District Court docket number PC-2020-63
Springvale District Court docket number PC-2021-41
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY