Abstract

Comment: Juvenile Law
In Bechtel v. Rose, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed for the first time the question of whether a grandmother had a right to intervene in her parentless grandchild's dependency hearing. The court held that while grandparents have no statutory standing to intervene, the tenor of Arizona's legislative and judicial decisions, as well as sound public policy, demands that they be allowed to do so unless it would not be in the best interest of the child. The court additionally stated that the best interest of a parentless child is usually served by permitting his grandparents to intervene in his dependency hearing. This decision essentially reversed the burden of proof required when deciding whether to allow intervention in a dependency hearing.

This Comment will discuss the legal history of the "best interest" standard in Arizona. It will then examine Arizona's application of the standard to grandparents, and grandparents' rights to intervene in other jurisdictions. Finally, it will analyze the court's holding in Bechtel and suggest that the court's holding serves to cause the result it sought to avoid

The infant boy at issue was born in March, 1985, and lost his mother in an automobile accident in September, 1985. Shortly thereafter, the Arizona Department of Economic Security assumed care and custody of the child and a dependency hearing soon followed. The petitioner, the child's maternal grandmother, moved first to intervene in the hearing, and second to be named guardian and conservator of her grandchild. Both motions were denied by the juvenile court. The Arizona Supreme Court granted the petition for special action and stayed the proceedings in the juvenile court.

How to Cite