Robb, J.
Case Summary and Issues
A.W. and S.W. (“Foster Parents”) were the foster parents of K.V. and A.V. (“Children”) until the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) removed the Children from Foster Parents’ home and entered an order terminating the foster placement. Foster Parents filed a motion to correct error, a motion to intervene in the child in need of services (“CHINS”) proceedings, and a motion to establish custody of the Children. The juvenile court denied Foster Parents’ motion to correct error and motion to intervene. Further, the juvenile court stayed any custody determination until the completion of the CHINS proceedings.
Foster Parents now appeal raising one issue for our review, which we expand and restate as: (1) whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying Foster Parents’ motion to correct error; (2) whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying Foster Parents’ motion to intervene; and (3) whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by staying custody proceedings filed by Foster Parents.
Concluding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying Foster Parents’ motion to correct error, denying Foster Parents’ motion to intervene, or staying Foster Parents’ custody proceeding, we affirm.
….
Foster Parents argue that DCS was statutorily required to make a reasonable effort to reunify the Children with them and failed to do so. Pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-21-5.5(b)(2), DCS “shall make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families . . . [i]f a child has been removed from the child’s home [and] to make it possible for the child to return safely to the child’s home as soon as possible.”
Indiana Code section 31-34-21-5.5(c) seemingly contemplates a child’s reunification with “a parent, guardian, or custodian[.]” And Indiana Code section 31-9-2-31(b) defines custodian, in relevant part, as “a license applicant or licensee of . . . a foster home” or “an individual who has or intends to have direct contact, on a regular and continuing basis, with a child for whom the individual provides care and supervision.” Further, “family” includes an individual who “has or previously had an established legal relationship . . . as a foster parent[.]” Ind. Code § 31-9-2-44.5(a)(6)(D). However, Indiana Code section 31-34-23-6 states the requirements for DCS regarding the change of a child’s out-of-home placement. Pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-23-6(a), prior to changing a child’s out-of-home placement, DCS must file a motion requesting a change in placement. [Footnote omitted.] DCS must give notice to all persons affected and if such a person files an objection to the change, the juvenile court shall hold a hearing wherein DCS is required to show that the change in out-of-home placement is in the best interest of the child. Ind. Code § 31-34-23-6(c),(f)&(g).
Indiana Code section 31-34-23-6 contains no provision that either reunification or a grace period for the improvement of circumstances that prompted the change is required prior to DCS initiating a change in the out-of-home placement of a child. See Perry-Worth Concerned Citizens v. Bd. Of Comm’rs of Boone Cnty., 723 N.E.2d 457, 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (stating a court may not read into a statute that which is not the expressed intent of the legislature), trans. denied. Further, 465 I.A.C. 2-1.5-3 gives DCS the discretion to reevaluate a foster parent’s ability to meet competency requirements at any time, suggesting that the removal of a child from a foster placement to a more appropriate placement can occur at any time DCS finds it necessary.
Therefore, we conclude that a reasonable effort to reunify was not required and DCS was only required to show that the continued removal of the Children from the Foster Parents’ home and subsequent placement in the new foster home was in the Children’s best interest….
Accordingly, we conclude that DCS showed that the change of foster placement was in the Children’s best interest. Therefore, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying Foster Parents’ motion to correct error.
….
Foster Parents argue that the juvenile court “is abusing its discretion because it declines to allow [them] to participate in any future CHINS proceedings[.]” Br. of Appellant at 30. On March 16, 2022, Foster Parents filed a motion to intervene and a “motion to receive their statutory required notice and their right to participate in all case reviews and permanency hearings[.]” Appellant’s App., Vol. V at 76. Specifically, Foster Parents contend that they are entitled to intervene pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-21-4. We disagree.
Under Indiana Code section 31-34-21-4(a)(6), any person who DCS “knows has had a significant or caretaking relationship to the child” shall be provided notice of a periodic case review, including “a case review that is a permanency hearing[.]” Further, the court shall provide such a person “an opportunity to be heard and to make any recommendations to the court[.]” Ind. Code § 31-34-21- 4(d). Foster Parents argue that this entitles them to participate in the CHINS proceeding. However, Foster Parents conflate the participation provided for under Indiana Code section 31-34-21-4(d) with intervening as a party to the CHINS proceeding. See Ind. Code § 31-34-21-4.5.
Indiana Code section 31-34-21-4(d) provides that the right to be heard and to make recommendations includes: (1) the right to submit a written statement that may be made a part of the court record; and (2) the right to present oral testimony to the court and cross examine any of the witnesses at the hearing.7 Contrary to Foster Parents’ contention, it does not entitle Foster Parents an unqualified right to participate in all future CHINS proceedings or to intervene as a party. Instead, the correct statutory mechanism for intervention is Indiana Code section 31-34-21-4.5. Pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-21-4.5, a “person who has been a foster parent . . . may petition the court to request intervention as a party to a proceeding as set forth in IC 31-32-2.5.” (Emphasis added.) Indiana Code section 31-32-2.5-1 states that such an intervention may occur “during any stage of a child in need of services proceeding[.]” The juvenile court shall grant a petition to intervene if it determines “that intervention by the petitioner is in the best interests of the child.” Ind. Code § 31-32-2.5-3.
Here, Foster Parents fail to demonstrate that their intervention is in the best interest of the Children. Accordingly, we conclude that the juvenile court did not err by denying Foster Parents’ motion to intervene.
….
Conclusion
We conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying Foster Parents’ motion to correct error, denying Foster Parents’ motion to intervene, or staying Foster Parents’ custody proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.