H & W v. John Doe
Background
- Children were first removed in 2012 after unsafe home conditions and parental/child positive drug tests; parents completed services and case was dismissed after 20 months.
- In Feb 2016 the children were again removed for unsafe conditions, drug use, and lack of food; both parents stipulated to an aggravated-circumstances finding (chronic neglect).
- Department did not prepare a new case plan in 2016 because aggravated circumstances relieve the Department of reunification efforts under I.C. § 16-1620.
- Evidence at trial: unsanitary home with drugs and hazards, parental drug use and criminal charges, homelessness/incarceration, children’s developmental delays improved in foster care, and Doe declined visitation and mental-health/drug treatment.
- Magistrate terminated Doe’s parental rights under Idaho Code § 16-2005 for neglect and found termination was in the children’s best interests; Doe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by neglect under I.C. § 16-2005 | Doe challenged sufficiency, arguing mitigating circumstances and need for accommodations for his cognitive/mental issues | State argued substantial evidence (unsafe home, repeat neglect, chronic drug use, lack of reunification) supports neglect finding | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of neglect and best interests supported termination |
| Whether Department had to provide special accommodations for Doe’s cognitive/mental impairments | Doe argued the Department and court should have made special accommodations and addressed these in prior plan | State and magistrate noted Doe stipulated to aggravated circumstances, was represented, did not request accommodations, and had prior services | Held: no error—Doe failed to raise competency below, had counsel, and did not seek extra services |
| Whether due process/clear-and-convincing-evidence standard was satisfied on appeal | Doe contended findings lacked required proof and objective support | State relied on trial testimony, officers’ and social worker’s observations, foster testimony, and Doe’s admissions to drug use and lack of participation | Held: appellate standard (substantial, competent evidence supporting clear-and-convincing standard) met; magistrate’s factual findings upheld |
| Whether stipulation to aggravated circumstances and resulting procedural path was proper | Doe argued aggravated-circumstances finding was improper without addressing cognitive issues in 2012 plan | State noted Doe stipulated in 2016 and statute removes need for reunification efforts once aggravated circumstances found | Held: stipulation valid; statute-controlled procedures were followed and no reversible error occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental liberty interest under Due Process)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758, 53 P.3d 341 (Idaho recognition of parental liberty interest)
- State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 172 P.3d 1114 (statutory grounds and principles for termination)
- In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 203 P.3d 689 (standards on termination proof)
- Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243, 220 P.3d 1062 (appellate review standard for termination findings)
- Doe v. Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 144 P.3d 597 (clear-and-convincing evidentiary expectations)
- In re Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 141 P.3d 1057 (definition and scope of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Doe, 161 Idaho 393, 386 P.3d 916 (competency/appointment issues and participation as basis for denying special procedural accommodations)