Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
150 Idaho 36
| Idaho | 2010Background
- Department reported unsanitary, unsafe home conditions; children ages 11 months, 2, and 7; initial CPA petition led to temporary custody and foster care; two younger children placed in foster care, oldest with father; multiple case plans and reunification efforts over roughly three and a half years; after initial return, conditions worsened leading to removal and termination petition; magistrate terminated parental rights based on neglect and best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether neglect findings supported termination | Doe failed to comply with case plan | Doe did not necessarily harm children; no required actual harm | Yes; substantial evidence supported neglect based on plan noncompliance. |
| Whether termination was in the best interests of the children | Termination necessary due to ongoing unsanitary conditions | No need for actual harm; best interests require more analysis | Yes; termination in best interests given continued risk and lack of remediation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Cheatwood, 108 Idaho 218, 697 P.2d 1232 (Ct.App. 1985) (neglect does not require demonstrable harm to terminate)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear and convincing standard; fundamental rights in parent-child relationship)
- In re Aragon, 120 Idaho 606, 818 P.2d 310 (1991) (independent review; deference to magistrate credibility)
- State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 144 P.3d 597 (2006) (definition of substantial and competent evidence; standard on appeal)