H & W v. John Doe (2017-2)
Background
- Father (John Doe) tested positive for methamphetamine and THC in July 2015 after leaving his child A.M. with persons under investigation for neglect; child was removed and placed in Department custody.
- Shelter care and adjudicatory hearings (July–August 2015) resulted in A.M. remaining in foster care and a case plan was created for Doe.
- Doe failed to complete the case plan over most of the ~15 months A.M. was in custody; he later undertook some treatment while incarcerated but had no stable housing or employment plan.
- The Department filed to terminate Doe’s parental rights after prolonged lack of reunification and noncompliance with the case plan.
- Magistrate found neglect (I.C. §16-2002(3)) based on failure to complete the case plan, long history of substance abuse, instability in housing/employment, probation violations, and exposure of A.M. to methamphetamine; concluded termination was in the child’s best interest.
- On appeal, Doe argued the magistrate relied improperly on his rehabilitation efforts and incarceration; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence of neglect and best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Doe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved neglect under I.C. §16-2002(3) to permit termination | Neglect proven by failure to complete case plan, long substance-abuse history, lack of stable housing/employment, probation violations, and child exposure to drugs | Doe disputed that these facts (given his treatment efforts) established neglect by clear and convincing evidence | Held: Yes—court found clear and convincing evidence of neglect based on multiple factors, not rehabilitation alone |
| Whether incarceration or efforts at rehabilitation alone can justify termination | Court: incarceration/rehabilitation may be relevant but cannot be the sole basis; totality of factors supports termination | Doe argued his rehabilitation and incarceration should not, by themselves, justify termination of parental rights | Held: Termination upheld; magistrate did not rely solely on incarceration or rehabilitation but on multiple objectively supportable factors |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | Best interest supported by prolonged lack of reunification, instability, and risk to child’s wellbeing | Doe argued improved conduct and participation in treatment weigh against termination | Held: Termination in child’s best interest affirmed given the statutory factors and evidence of likely continued risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizing parental fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (clear-and-convincing standard required for termination of parental rights)
- Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758 (parental liberty interest principles applied in Idaho)
- State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839 (statutory grounds for termination and standards)
- In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759 (termination evidentiary standards)
- Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243 (appellate review standard—substantial and competent evidence)
- In re Doe, 143 Idaho 188 (clarifying clear-and-convincing evidence meaning)