454 P.3d 1140
Idaho2019Background
- Mother gave birth to A.C.S. on Dec. 24, 2017; tests showed prenatal methamphetamine exposure; parents admitted long-term meth use and domestic violence in the camper home.
- Department removed the children on Jan. 2, 2018; shelter-care and adjudicatory hearings resulted in the Department retaining custody and a court-adopted reunification case plan for Father (Feb. 23, 2018).
- Father’s case plan required substance assessment/treatment, random UAs, mental-health treatment, stable housing and employment, visitation, reunification services, and addressing domestic violence; Father late-completed some steps and repeatedly used meth, missed services and visits.
- Department moved permanency hearing earlier (from Dec. 28 to Nov. 26, 2018) and changed the permanency goal to termination and relative adoption due to limited parental progress.
- Department petitioned to terminate parental rights Dec. 11, 2018; after a four-day trial the magistrate court found clear and convincing evidence of neglect and that termination was in the children’s best interests and entered final termination June 11, 2019.
- Father appealed, raising (1) a due-process/ statutory argument about Idaho Code §16-1622(2)(g)(i) vs 42 U.S.C. §675(5)(E)(i) and (2) sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father preserved and has a meritorious due-process claim based on differences between 42 U.S.C. §675(5)(E)(i) and I.C. §16-1622(2)(g)(i) when the permanency hearing was moved up | Dept.: Father failed to preserve the issue below; even if considered, any textual difference governs Department filing obligations and federal funding, not Father’s due-process rights | Father: statutory difference creates an implied “policy of patience” for relatives caring for children; moving the permanency hearing early violated his due process rights | Not preserved; on the merits would fail — the Idaho statute regulates Department filing obligations (not the court’s timing) and does not create a due-process entitlement in Father |
| Whether termination was supported by substantial, competent evidence (grounds of neglect and best interests) | Dept.: Clear and convincing evidence shows neglect — failure to comply with the case plan, drug use, domestic violence, unstable housing/employment — and termination serves children’s best interests given improvements in foster care and children’s needs | Father: Compliance was effectively impossible due to funding/timing for inpatient treatment, treatment constraints delayed mental-health work, and he made progress late in the case | Affirmed. Substantial, competent evidence supported neglect findings under I.C. §16-2002(3)(b) and I.C. §16-1602(31)(a),(b), and termination was in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Doe (2014-23), 157 Idaho 920 (2015) (standard for termination and two-part inquiry)
- In re Doe (2013-15), 156 Idaho 103 (2014) (clear-and-convincing proof requirement for termination)
- Matter of Aragon, 120 Idaho 606 (1991) (authority on termination proof standard)
- Matter of Doe II, 165 Idaho 199 (2019) (definition of clear-and-convincing and related standards)
- Matter of Doe, 164 Idaho 875 (2019) (parental responsibility for non-compliance with case plan)
- Doe v. Doe, 150 Idaho 46 (2010) (review deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In Interest of Doe I, 163 Idaho 274 (2018) (two-part termination framework)