Although the rules of civil procedure do not apply in care and protection and parental termination proceedings in the Juvenile Court, and although the Juvenile Court Rules for the Care and Protection of Children do not expressly contain a rule on relief from judgment, we have little doubt that a Juvenile Court judge has authority to grant such relief, if warranted, and that Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 provides “a cogent standard” in this respect, at least in the circumstances of this case. See Care & Protection of Richard, 456 Mass. 1002, 1002 n. 3, 921 N.E.2d 535 (2010), citing Care & Protection of Zelda, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 869, 871, 534 N.E.2d 7 (1989). The Juvenile Court docket indicates that the judge conducted colloquies with both parents before accepting the stipulations, and the decrees indicate that the judge considered the proposed placement plans.
Furthermore, although the department claims that the aunt had a right to appeal from the "final judgment" denying her motion to intervene, it fails to discuss whether the aunt's motion, made by analogy to Mass.R.Civ.P. 24, 365 Mass. 769 (1974), and Mass.R.Dom.Rel.P. 24, was one seeking permissive intervention or intervention as matter of right with respect to Phelan. See Care Protection of Rae, 454 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (2009), and cases cited (indicating that a denial of a claim of intervention as of right is immediately appealable, as is denial of permissive intervention when raised concurrently); Care Protection of Richard, 456 Mass. 1002, 1002 (2010). See also Care Protection of Zelda, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 869, 871 (1989).
An “interlocutory order denying intervention as of right under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(a), 365 Mass. 769 (1974), is immediately appealable, see, e.g., Massachusetts Fed'n of Teachers v. School Comm. of Chelsea, 409 Mass. 203, 204, 564 N.E.2d 1027 (1991), and when there is an appeal from a denial of a claim of intervention as of right, the court also generally considers the denial of a request for permissive intervention under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(b), 365 Mass. 769 (1974).” Care & Protection of Richard, 456 Mass. 1002, 1002, 921 N.E.2d 535 (2010). The parties agree that Reznik's motion was predicated on both rule 24(a)(2) and (b)(2).
"An ‘interlocutory order denying intervention as of right under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24 (a), 365 Mass. 769 (1974), is immediately appealable.’ " Reznik v. Garaffo, 466 Mass. 1034, 1035, 999 N.E.2d 1089 (2013), quoting Care & Protection of Richard, 456 Mass. 1002, 1002, 921 N.E.2d 535 (2010). "At least where there is also an appeal from a denial of a claim of intervention as of right, we will also consider the denial of a request for permissive intervention."
Nevertheless, case law suggests that the Rules of Civil Procedure may not apply directly to a care and protection proceeding. See Care & Protection of Richard, 456 Mass. 1002, 1002 n.3 (2010) ; Guardianship of Phelan, 76 Mass. App. Ct. at 753. We need not decide the issue, however, because here any error was harmless under the circumstances, where almost immediately after the hearing additional facts came to light that would have caused the department to refile a petition for care and protection.
Nevertheless, case law suggests that the Rules of Civil Procedure may not apply directly to a care and protection proceeding. SeeCare & Protection of Richard, 456 Mass. 1002, 1002 n.3 (2010); Guardianship of Phelan, 76 Mass.App.Ct. at 753. We need not decide the issue, however, because here any error was harmless under the circumstances, where almost immediately after the hearing additional facts came to light that would have caused the department to refile a petition for care and protection.