Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. John Doe (In re Doe), 436 P.3d 1224

Children were placed in the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (Department) custody after a March 2016 Child Protection Act (CPA) petition alleging drug exposure and an unsafe home environment; shelter-care removal followed an unannounced law-enforcement visit.
Parents stipulated to an unstable home environment; the Department prepared case plans in June 2016 requiring tasks (GAIN assessment, drug testing, housing, parenting classes, visitation, financial support, permitting home visits, etc.).
Father inconsistently participated: multiple positive drug tests, many missed tests, intermittent employment and unstable housing (motels, tent, relatives), missed many supervised visits, partial/late attendance at assessments and classes, and periodic incarceration for probation violations totaling roughly three months.
The Department recommended adoption as permanent plan in June 2017; trial was held in early 2018 after scheduling delays. Magistrate court found by clear and convincing evidence that Father neglected the children by failing to comply with the case plan under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b) and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Father appealed, arguing (1) insufficient substantial competent evidence of neglect and (2) the court failed to properly account for his periods of incarceration making compliance impossible.

Issue	Father’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether substantial, competent evidence supported termination for neglect under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b) (failure to comply with case plan)	Father: Specific factual findings were unsupported (e.g., timing of treatment, visitation counts, child support) and overall evidence insufficient to show neglect.	State: Even if some discrete findings misstated, ample unchallenged evidence (positive drug tests, missed tests, unstable housing, failed parenting tasks, poor visitation) shows failure to comply and responsibility for noncompliance.	Affirmed: Substantial, competent evidence supports neglect finding based on failure to complete the case plan.
Whether Father’s periods of incarceration made compliance impossible (impossibility defense)	Father: Time in custody prevented completion of time-limited tasks; trial court failed to give proper weight to impossibility.	State: Father was incarcerated intermittently (not at plan inception), incarceration partly resulted from his choices (probation violations); many tasks within his control remained unmet.	Affirmed: Court properly considered incarceration; impossibility defense not established because Father bore responsibility for noncompliance.

In re Doe, 157 Idaho 920 (2015) (standards for termination under I.C. § 16-2005 and appellate review)
Doe I v. Doe II, 150 Idaho 46 (2010) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 161 Idaho 596 (2016) (impossibility can be a defense to failure-to-comply termination under § 16-2002(3)(b))
Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243 (2009) (substantial, competent evidence standard for findings)
Roe v. Doe, 142 Idaho 174 (2005) (weight to trial court’s credibility findings)
Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 161 Idaho 754 (2017) (distinguishing incarceration cases; compliance may be possible despite intermittent custody)
In Interest of Doe I, 163 Idaho 274 (2018) (appellate duty to review record but defer to trial court credibility assessments)