Dept of H&W v. Jane Doe (2016-19)
Background
- Mother (Jane Doe) has ten children; this case concerns A.B., born Feb. 2014, removed Aug. 2014 after Doe was reported suicidal and acting irrationally.
- At removal, A.B. was near the 10th percentile for weight despite a healthy birth weight; after placement in foster care A.B. rose to 40th percentile in four months and to the 70th percentile by age one.
- The Department filed to terminate Doe’s parental rights after ~15 months without successful reunification; trials were bifurcated as to the father (who did not appeal).
- Evidence at Doe’s trial: longstanding mental-health diagnoses, prior terminations of parental rights to eight other children, erratic supervised-visit behavior, lack of unsupervised visits, and use of but limited benefit from extensive services.
- Doe denied that her mental illness affected parenting; her current therapist testified to improvement but had never observed Doe with her children.
- Magistrate found termination proper on grounds of neglect (failure to feed) and inability to discharge parental responsibilities for a prolonged period likely to be injurious to the child; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports neglect finding | Doe: No medical testimony tying low weight to her conduct; no proof she failed to feed A.B. | Department: A.B.’s weight fell while with Doe and rebounded immediately in foster care—permits inference of inadequate feeding | Court: Substantial competent evidence supports neglect finding based on weight trajectory and lack of alternative explanation |
| Whether evidence supports finding Doe presently unable to discharge parental responsibilities | Doe: Court relied on an expert who never met her and gave greater weight to stale reports; her current provider says she can parent | Department: Court could rely on history, records, prior terminations, and expert opinions drawn from records; credibility and weight are for the trial court | Court: Magistrate reasonably credited record evidence (including prior terminations and mental-health history); substantial competent evidence supports inability-to-parent finding |
| Admissibility/weight of expert testimony based on records, not personal exam | Doe: Testimony of expert who never met her was improper | Department: Experts may opine based on available records under evidentiary rules | Court: No error; experts may base opinions on records (rule 703) and trial court decides weight/credibility |
| Requirement to show current harm from underweight condition | Doe: No testimony that low weight harmed A.B.’s health, so neglect not shown | Department: Statutory neglect does not require demonstrable harm—lack of proper care suffices | Court: Not required to show physical harm; neglect may be found without proof of resulting health damage |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental liberty interest under Due Process)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758, 53 P.3d 341 (parental liberty interest and substantive protections)
- State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 172 P.3d 1114 (statutory grounds and standards for termination)
- In re Doe, 143 Idaho 383, 146 P.3d 649 (clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review of termination findings)