247 P.3d 659
Idaho2011Background
- Guardian appointment after parents were arrested on drug charges in Utah; children placed in guardians’ temporary custody in Idaho; petition to terminate guardianship filed by natural parents; magistrate denied termination citing best interests; district court affirmed; parents argue a parental custody presumption should apply, precluding best-interest inquiry once circumstances prompting guardianship ended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the magistrate require a best-interest showing to terminate guardianship? | Doe argues no best-interest showing is required. | Guardians contend termination requires best-interest analysis under I.C. § 15-5-212(a). | Yes, best-interest showing required. |
| Was the magistrate's decision supported by substantial and competent evidence? | Doe asserts evidence supports termination. | Guardians argue the record supports termination not being in the best interest. | Court declines to review due to waiver under I.A.R. 35(a)(6). |
| Are guardians entitled to attorney fees on appeal? | N/A | Guardians seek fees under I.C. § 12-120 or -121. | Fees not awarded under § 12-120; no frivolous appeal; § 12-121 not awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Copenhaver, 124 Idaho 888 (Idaho 1993) (addressed parental presumption in guardianship appointment; not directly controlling termination; cautioned focus on appointment and fitness.)
- In re Doe, 148 Idaho 432 (Idaho 2009) (removal focus on guardian’s fitness; best-interest standard in removal proceedings.)
- Crowley v. Critchfield, 145 Idaho 509 (Idaho 2007) (issue not supported by authority waived on appeal; standards for appellate briefing.)