## Facts

- E.G. and K.B. were adjudicated neglected in 1968, and legal custody was vested in the Hennepin County Welfare Department.
- E.G. was placed with foster parents at about 45 days old and lived with them continuously for nearly 10 years.
- The natural mother later sought clarification or expansion of visitation and pursued eventual reunification, prompting further juvenile-court consideration of the child’s status and the mother’s ability to care for him.
- The foster parents moved to intervene in the juvenile proceeding, asserting intervention was necessary to protect the child’s best interests.
- The juvenile court granted the foster parents leave to intervene.
- The natural mother and the welfare department petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to block the intervention order from taking effect.

## Issues

1. Whether non-adopting foster parents have a sufficient legal interest or substantive right to intervene as parties in a juvenile neglect/custody proceeding over the objections of the natural parent and the legal custodian agency.
2. Whether a writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy to prevent a juvenile court from allowing such intervention.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition.
- The court held that non-adopting foster parents do not have a substantive right that entitles them to party status by intervention in the neglect proceeding.
- The juvenile court’s order permitting intervention was unauthorized and was prevented from taking effect.
- The court noted foster parents could still provide relevant information through testimony, and the child’s interests were protected through appointed counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Minnesota juvenile law expresses a strong preference for a child’s placement in the natural home when consistent with the child’s welfare, and reunification remains a continuing objective after removal when feasible.
- Creating a substantive, party-status right for non-adopting foster parents based on their relationship with a foster child conflicts with Minnesota statutes and the established legal rights of natural parents.
- Foster parents’ interests in the child’s welfare may be addressed through participation as witnesses or informational sources, rather than by granting them adversarial party status.
- A writ of prohibition may issue to restrain a lower court from exercising judicial power not authorized by law when no adequate alternative remedy exists.

## Conclusion

The court barred foster parents from intervening as parties in ongoing juvenile neglect proceedings, reasoning that long-term foster placement does not create a substantive right overriding the natural parent’s legal position, and that the foster parents’ contribution can be handled through testimony and existing representation for the child.


In re Welfare of E.G. & K.B., 268 N.W.2d 420 (Minn. 1978)