304 P.3d 1202
Idaho2013Background
- Doe is the biological father of Son; he was in prison when Son was born.
- Son’s mother lived with another man and Son used that man’s surname.
- Son was placed in the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare custody after severe injuries indicating abuse.
- A paternity test in July 2011 showed 99.99% probability Doe is Son’s father, and he was substituted as putative father.
- Doe visited Son, completed a parenting class, and held intermittent employment but showed issues with income, housing, and methamphetamine use; numerous probation violations affected visitation.
- In November 2012 the Department petitioned for an Order of Non-Establishment of Parental Rights; a brief hearing was held; in January 2013 the magistrate entered nonestablishment and final judgment; Doe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to evidentiary hearing before nonestablishment | Doe seeks an evidentiary hearing to prove Parenthood | Department argues no such hearing due to waiver and non-parent status | No entitlement to evidentiary hearing; waiver and status defeat hearing |
| Whether due process was violated by nonestablishment | Doe claims procedural due process rights were violated | Waiver and statutory framework support no due process violation | No due process violation; Lehr v. Robertson supports state interest and notice was within control of claimant |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (notice and due process in parental rights context; potential for omission of fathers weighed against state interests)
- In re Doe, 151 Idaho 356 (Idaho 2011) (parental rights as a fundamental liberty interest; applicability to Idaho due process)
- Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 88 (Idaho 2010) (discussion of when biological father has rights and evidentiary hearing considerations)