H&W v. Jane Doe (2016-29)
Background
- In October 2014, two minor children were removed from their father’s custody and the Department of Health and Welfare obtained temporary legal custody after finding the children and their home in dangerous condition; Mother (Jane Doe) was incarcerated at the time.
- The parties stipulated to protective custody; a case plan for Doe was approved December 19, 2014, requiring parenting classes, supervised visitation, stable housing, employment/income, and mental-health treatment.
- Doe was continuously out of compliance: she completed only the protective parenting class but failed to demonstrate skills in visits, missed visits, poorly engaged in mental-health treatment, changed residences without notification, experienced homelessness into mid-2015, and had unstable, short-term employment.
- The children remained in foster care continuously from October 2014 through the magistrate’s termination decision on July 8, 2016 (more than 20 months).
- The Department petitioned to terminate Doe’s parental rights on November 6, 2015; the magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that Doe neglected the children under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b) and that termination was in their best interests; judgment was entered July 8, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence Doe neglected the children under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b) (failure to comply with case plan + Department custody 15/22 months) | Doe argued the magistrate erred in finding neglect and that the evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard | The Department argued Doe failed to complete her case plan and the children had been in Department custody continuously for the statutory period, supporting neglect | Held: Affirmed. Court found clear and convincing evidence Doe failed case-plan requirements and children were in foster care for the requisite period; statutory neglect proven |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Doe contested the neglect finding but did not contest the magistrate’s best-interests determination on appeal | Department maintained termination served the children’s welfare given prolonged foster placement and Doe’s noncompliance | Held: Court affirmed termination as being in the children’s best interests (appellant did not challenge this finding on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental custodial relationship is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Doe v. Doe, 143 Idaho 343 (Idaho 2006) (higher quantum of proof required when clear-and-convincing standard applies)
- Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243 (Idaho 2009) (appellate review looks for substantial and competent evidence supporting termination)
- State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839 (Idaho 2007) (due-process protection of parental rights)
- In re Doe, 143 Idaho 188 (Idaho 2006) (definition/understanding of clear and convincing evidence)