H & W v. John Doe (2017-8)
Background
- Child A.F., born 2010, was removed from parents in 2015 after repeated Department reports and an incident where mother, under the influence, walked with A.F. in traffic.
- Father John was incarcerated in 2014 for aggravated DUI and later for drug trafficking; his sentence satisfaction date is 2029 and parole eligibility dates were years after removal.
- Department developed case plans; John complied with his plan while incarcerated (telephone, letters, gifts) but could not provide physical custody or daily care. Mother failed to comply and reunification with her became impossible.
- A.F. was placed with his maternal uncle in California and showed stability; counselor testified A.F. has anxiety, anger, and abandonment issues needing stability and permanency.
- Department petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights in November 2016; magistrate terminated both in January 2017. John appealed the termination of his parental rights.
- Magistrate found statutory grounds (neglect, abandonment, inability to discharge parental responsibilities, incarceration) and that termination was in A.F.’s best interests due to lack of parental care, need for stability, and John’s lengthy incarceration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether John neglected A.F. under I.C. §16-2002(3)/§16-1602(31) | State: John’s long incarceration and chronic failure to provide care constituted neglect despite case-plan compliance. | John: He complied with the case plan, maintained contact, attempted guardianship arrangements, and did all he could while incarcerated. | Held: Neglect proven; incarceration prevented provision of parental care and constituted neglect. |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | State: Termination necessary for A.F.’s stability, permanency, treatment of abandonment issues, and because uncle provides a safe, stable home. | John: Implied that continued relationship and his compliance weigh against termination. | Held: Termination in A.F.’s best interests given stability with uncle, counselor’s testimony, John’s incarceration and substance-abuse/criminal history. |
| Whether incarceration alone can support termination/neglect finding | State: Long, indeterminate incarceration justifies finding neglect and supports termination. | John: Incarceration limits but does not negate parental efforts or bonds; he complied with plan. | Held: Consistent with precedent, prolonged incarceration can constitute neglect and support termination. |
| Adequacy of evidentiary standard (clear and convincing) | State: Evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard to show neglect and best interests. | John: Argued insufficient evidence given compliance and contact. | Held: Record contained substantial, competent evidence meeting clear-and-convincing standard; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental-rights termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758 (Idaho recognition of parental liberty interest)
- Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 151 Idaho 846 (incarceration can constitute neglect supporting termination)
- In re Aragon, 120 Idaho 606 (best-interests inquiry following statutory ground for termination)