be transferred to a new lower court case number (case number 09-15176). Thereafter, the mother and father entered into an agreement providing the father would consent to termination of his parental rights and the mother would agree to withdraw the action for child support. The trial court subsequently entered an order in the custody case approving the parties’ stipulated agreement and terminating the father’s parental rights. Several months later, the mother filed a “Motion to Intervene” in both lower court case n 991). The trial court correctly ruled, however, that intervention in the concluded child custody case is not the proper vehicle for the mother or the child to challenge the agreement and resulting order. See In re Adoption of a Minor Child, 593 So.2d 185, 189-90 (Fla.1991) (<HOLDING>). The motion for intervention filed in the DOR
recognizing intervention is generally impermissible after entry of final judgment and exception allowing postjudg ment intervention in the interests of justice is limited to permitting intervention by affected persons so that an appeal can be taken holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention holding that pursuant to rule 2a2 a party may appeal an order denying a motion for permissive intervention holding that as applied to case in which applicants for intervention are already plaintiffs in another ongoing lawsuit and that the matter on which they wish to expound  is squarely before the other court section 21g bars intervention noting that allowing intervention would effectively allow coordination of enforcement action with lawsuit already pending in another jurisdiction