Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 342 P.3d 632

TSD, a two-year-old identified as an “Indian child” under ICWA, was removed from mother Jane Doe’s custody in April 2012 after authorities found the child unattended and Doe intoxicated; TSD was placed with DHW and then with Doe’s aunt.
The court endorsed a reunification case plan requiring Doe to complete substance-abuse treatment, obtain a mental-health evaluation, attend parenting classes, and participate in visits and TSD’s medical/therapy appointments.
Over the next year Doe made limited progress: sporadic visitation and therapy attendance, incomplete treatment, probation violations, warrants issued, and loss of contact with DHW after June 2013.
In June 2013 the State petitioned to terminate parental rights; after a multi-day trial the magistrate court found by clear and convincing evidence that Doe had neglected and abandoned TSD and that termination was in TSD’s best interests.
The magistrate also made ICWA findings: DHW made “active efforts” to prevent breakup of the Indian family, and continued custody would likely cause serious emotional or physical harm (found beyond a reasonable doubt).
Doe appealed only the court’s finding on ICWA’s “active efforts” — arguing the court failed to apply a clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard to that finding and that the evidence does not support active efforts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court was required to apply clear-and-convincing standard to ICWA §1912(d) "active efforts" finding	Doe: due process requires grounds related to termination be proved by clear and convincing evidence, so active-efforts finding must meet that standard	DHW: due-process clear-and-convincing applies to statutory grounds for termination (Idaho Code §16-2005), not ICWA §1912(d); ICWA does not mandate C&C for §1912(d)	Court: No. Due process requires C&C for termination grounds (which were proven). ICWA §1912(d) does not require a C&C standard; the court’s statement that it was "satisfied" met §1912(d)'s requirement
Whether substantial, competent evidence supports finding that DHW made active efforts under ICWA §1912(d)	Doe: DHW failed by denying/ failing to secure requested additional treatment and failing to prevent foster mother interference with contact/appointments	DHW: arranged supervised visits, parent-child counseling, medical/therapy appointments, parenting classes, and treatment referrals; Doe largely failed to participate and was often unreachable	Court: Affirmed. Substantial competent evidence supports finding of active efforts over the case as a whole; Doe’s failures to participate and periods of no contact were significant factors

Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207, 233 P.3d 138 (Idaho 2010) (C&C is required to prove statutory grounds for termination)
Doe v. Doe, 150 Idaho 46, 244 P.3d 190 (Idaho 2010) (appellate review requires independent record review but deference to magistrate’s credibility findings)
Matter of Baby Boy Doe, 127 Idaho 452, 902 P.2d 477 (Idaho 1995) (ICWA §1912(d) active-efforts finding need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and analysis of evidentiary standards in ICWA)
In re Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 144 P.3d 597 (Idaho 2006) (due process requires C&C proof of grounds for termination)
Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 152 Idaho 797, 275 P.3d 23 (Ct. App. 2012) (distinguishing active efforts from passive planning; active efforts require helping parent develop skills)