Matter Of Stapleford

931 A.2d 1199 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The record supports the following. Cheryl (M) and Richard (F) were married on October 17, 1992. On December 10, 2004, the parties filed for divorce. On July 27, 2005, the court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent the interests of the parties' two children. On April 14, 2005, the Court entered a temporary order awarding M primary physical custody of the children. On May 17, 2006, the GAL submitted a preliminary report recommending, against their preference, that Cs live primarily in Milford with M. F retained Attorney Kevin Buchholz to represent the children. Buchholz filed a motion, on behalf of Cs, to modify the court's temporary orders. The court denied the motion because Cs were not parties to the case. Buchholz then filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Cs. Buchholz asserted a due process and statutory right of Cs to be heard and that a court cannot give substantial weight to Cs' preferences if they are not allowed to intervene when a GAL makes a recommendation contrary to their preferences. The GAL opposed intervention, asserting that it would unduly empower Cs, encourage them to violate rules, make parenting harder, and otherwise confuse them. The master denied the motion to intervene, finding that the GAL had represented Cs best interests and had adequately reported their preferences. Cs appealed. Cs argue that: (1) they have a statutory right to intervene as parties to their parents' divorce; (2) the trial court committed an unsustainable exercise of discretion in failing to apply the proper intervention test and denying their motion to intervene; (3) they have a due process right to intervene; and (4) they were denied due process at the hearing on the motion to intervene.