H & W v. Jane Doe (2017-11)
Background
- Mother (Jane Doe) injected bath salts, became paranoid/hallucinatory, and wandered with her two young children; she and nine-month-old G.J. were found partially submerged in a muddy ditch and the children were removed by bystanders and police.
- The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare placed G.J. (and sibling H.J.) in foster care; children later placed with paternal grandparents; Doe was incarcerated following convictions (felony injury to a child and grand theft) and faced a release date no earlier than August 2017.
- The State petitioned to terminate Doe’s parental rights on grounds of neglect, failure to comply with court orders/case plan, and prolonged incarceration likely during the child’s minority; magistrate granted termination.
- Magistrate found clear and convincing evidence Doe neglected G.J. due to drug use and inability to provide parental care (including a prior voluntary safety plan and evidence of continued drug use), and that termination served G.J.’s best interests because waiting for Doe’s rehabilitation would delay permanency.
- Doe appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of neglect, (2) impossibility of complying with the case plan due to incarceration, (3) termination was not in child’s best interest, and (4) court failed to consider guardianship as an alternative; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neglect under I.C. §16-1602(31) (failure to provide care) | Doe: Ditch incident showed she tried to protect children and kept G.J.’s head out of water; drug use does not equal neglect here | State/Magistrate: Drug use (including injection of bath salts), prior safety-plan concerns, and incarceration show failure to provide parental care | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of neglect based on drug use, prior safety plan, and inability to provide care while incarcerated |
| Case-plan compliance impossibility due to incarceration | Doe: Can't complete case plan while incarcerated; magistrate should have found compliance impossible | State: Incarceration resulted from Doe’s criminal conduct; inability to provide care remains relevant | Rejected Doe: incarceration and its causes were considered and do not preclude finding neglect or termination |
| Best interest of the child for termination | Doe: She has participated in programming, maintained contact, and will likely be paroled August 2017; can provide stability | State: Child has stable foster placement; waiting for Doe would delay permanency and risk further disruption | Affirmed: termination is in G.J.’s best interest given need for stability and uncertainty about timely, sustained parental fitness |
| Consideration of guardianship as alternative | Doe: Court should have considered guardianship (maternal grandmother sought guardianship) | State: Guardianship conflicts with goal of termination/adoption; Doe cites no authority | Waived/Rejected: Doe failed to present legal authority or explain why guardianship should have been considered; issue waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental liberty interest under Due Process)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (clear-and-convincing evidence required to terminate parental rights)
- Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758 (recognition of parental liberty interest under state law)
- Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243 (appellate review standard: substantial and competent evidence)
- Doe v. Roe, 133 Idaho 805 (best-interest analysis—stability and certainty for child favored over parental uncertainty)