Doe v. Doe, 266 P.3d 1182

Father and Mother are biological parents of John Doe I, John Doe II, and Jane Doe; their marriage ended with finalization of divorce in 2008.
From mid-2008 to May 2010, Father had virtually no contact with the children, with only one December 2008 telephone contact and one attempted in-person contact in 2009.
In May 2010, Mother and Stepfather petitioned to terminate Father's parental rights to permit adoption by Stepfather.
A two-day trial addressed termination; the magistrate court found willful abandonment and that termination was in the children's best interests.
Father appeals arguing lack of regular contact, absence of just cause, and that termination was not in the best interests.
On review, the Idaho Court of Appeals affirms termination, applying clear and convincing evidence standard and considering the best interests standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there regular personal contact sufficient to negate abandonment?	Doe contends there were attempts and some contact showing a normal relationship.	Mother/testimony and records show minimal to no regular contact during 22 months.	No; insufficient regular contact established abandonment.
Did Father have just cause for lack of contact?	Doe asserts impediments (interference, travel limits, finances) justified lack of contact.	Mother argues lack of communication, not interference, and no just cause shown.	No; no just cause shown for the extended period.
Was termination in the best interests of the children?	Doe argues no evidence of abuse; thus termination not warranted.	Mother/Stepparent evidence shows stability, bond with Stepfather, and detriment from Father's absence.	Yes; termination was in the children's best interests.
Is abandonment a proper statutory basis under Idaho law in these facts?	Abandonment supported by willful failure to maintain a parental relationship.	Arguments focus on just cause and best interests rather than default abandonment.	Yes; evidence supports abandonment under I.C. 16-2005(1)(a) and 16-2002(5).
Did the trial court properly weigh credibility and evidence on contact and interference?	Doe contends trial court credibility determinations were flawed in favor of Mother.	Mother's credibility was supported by telephone records and consistent testimony.	Yes; trial court credibility findings upheld.

Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1978) (parental rights are protected with due-process safeguards)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear and convincing evidence required for termination)
In re Doe, 143 Idaho 343 (2006) (clear and convincing standard; trial court better observes demeanor and credibility)
Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758 (2002) (due process and parental rights considerations)
In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188 (2006) (normal parental relationship depends on circumstances)
In re Doe, 142 Idaho 594 (2006) (substantial and competent evidence standard; credibility)
State, Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 145 Idaho 662 (2008) (court may uphold best interests determination with sufficient evidence)
Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243 (2009) (review standard for parental termination and evidence sufficiency)