Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (In re I), 436 P.3d 670

Child born April 23, 2017, tested positive for methamphetamine; the Department took temporary custody after child was declared in imminent danger.
Mother and Father signed an amended reunification case plan requiring, among other things, substance abuse evaluation, 90 days' abstinence, treatment compliance, stable housing, parenting class, and attendance at visits and medical appointments.
Mother repeatedly used methamphetamine during the case, missed drug-treatment appointments, and did not advance beyond supervised visitation; she also had prior terminations of parental rights to three children for methamphetamine use.
The Department petitioned to terminate parental rights after ~15 months; a three-day termination hearing was held in August 2018 where Mother had recently begun treatment but was months from completion.
Magistrate court found neglect (Idaho Code § 16-1602(31) and § 16-2002(3)(B)) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; mother appealed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether neglect under I.C. § 16-1602(31) was supported by substantial, competent evidence	Court relied too heavily on Mother’s noncompletion of drug treatment and should have credited other case-plan compliance and hardships	Mother only recently showed partial treatment and sobriety; record supports neglect finding	Affirmed: substantial, competent evidence supports neglect finding under § 16-1602(31)
Whether neglect under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(B) was supported by evidence	Mother contends she complied (was enrolled) and case plan did not require completion by a specific date	Department says compliance required (90 days abstinence) and Mother failed to meet requirements	Court declined to decide because other statutory ground (§ 16-1602(31)) sufficed
Whether termination was in the child’s best interests	Court over-emphasized drug treatment and failed to weigh multiple best-interest factors	Court considered multiple factors (bond with foster parents, safety, Mother’s relapse history, supervised visits) and stability favored termination	Affirmed: termination is in child’s best interest; magistrate properly weighed relevant factors

In Interest of Doe Children, 163 Idaho 367, 413 P.3d 767 (2018) (discusses standard for best-interest analysis and appellate review)
Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 162 Idaho 236, 395 P.3d 1269 (2017) (standards for termination review and factors courts may consider)
Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Doe (Doe III), 150 Idaho 752, 250 P.3d 803 (Ct. App. 2011) (reversal where court ignored strong evidence of reunification progress)
Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243, 220 P.3d 1062 (2009) (appellate deference to trial court’s factual weighing and demeanor assessments)
State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 172 P.3d 1114 (2007) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence)