Doe II v. Doe I, 162 Idaho 653

Child born 2009; parents divorced 2010 with Mother awarded sole custody and Father ordered to pay support and subject to supervised visitation conditions later modified in 2012.
Father saw Child last in April 2011; sporadic contact thereafter (birthday gift 2012); owes substantial child support arrears (~$15,000) and paid only about $5,000 total over Child’s life.
Father lived with a long-term partner (Girlfriend), had other children there, and has convictions/charges for domestic violence including violations of no-contact orders; serving a rider at state facility at trial.
Mother married Stepfather in 2016; Stepfather has been the day-to-day father figure, Child calls him “Dad,” and he participates in daily care and decision-making.
Mother and Stepfather petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights (abandonment amended to neglect). Magistrate found neglect by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in Child’s best interest; district court affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother & Stepfather’s Argument	Held
Whether Father was wrongly found to have neglected Child when Mother allegedly blocked his efforts to support/contact Child	Mother deliberately obstructed his attempts (changed number/address, didn’t facilitate K.I.D.S. visits), so lack of contact/support wasn’t his fault	Father still had opportunities (could pay support through state, could pursue court enforcement, failed to consistently seek visits or comply with ordered evaluations); willfulness not required	Court affirmed: neglect proved by long-term failure to provide parental care/support despite opportunities; Mother’s obstruction didn’t excuse nonpayment or lack of effort
Whether the court improperly considered Stepfather’s relationship in best-interest analysis (i.e., comparing Father vs Stepfather)	Court improperly compared natural parent to step-parent without adequately accounting for Mother’s interference	Stability, permanence, and who performs parental functions are proper best-interest factors; Stepfather’s role and Father’s lack of involvement are relevant	Court affirmed: consideration of Stepfather’s commitment, familiarity, and ability to provide legal-parent functions was appropriate among other best-interest factors

Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243, 220 P.3d 1062 (due process requires clear and convincing proof for termination)
Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 151 Idaho 356, 256 P.3d 764 (definition of neglect; parental inability and care necessary for well-being)
Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 158 Idaho 764, 351 P.3d 1222 (willfulness not required for neglect finding)
Matter of Aragon, 120 Idaho 606, 818 P.2d 310 (trial court credibility deference and review standards)
Roe v. Doe, 142 Idaho 174, 125 P.3d 530 (consideration of past character to predict future parenting)
In Interest of Cheatwood, 108 Idaho 218, 697 P.2d 1232 (neglect can be found without demonstrable harm; lack of parental care suffices)
Thompson v. Thompson, 110 Idaho 93, 714 P.2d 62 (a parent cannot avoid responsibility by informally relinquishing custody to others)