Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
157 Idaho 765
| Idaho | 2014Background
- Father (John Doe) and mother divorced; two sons (born 2008 and 2011) were removed from parental custody after Department interventions beginning July 2012 for supervision, neglect, and suspected physical abuse.
- Doe had long-standing methamphetamine use, admitted continued use during the case, tested positive in Nov. 2012, and had repeated failures to complete substance-abuse treatment and follow case-plan requirements.
- Children were placed in foster care (their paternal grandparents) in December 2012 and remained in Department custody through the proceedings; mother consented to termination in May 2014.
- Doe experienced unstable housing, unemployment, missed children’s appointments and services, inconsistent visitation, and was arrested March 20, 2014 for drug possession and jailed through trial.
- The Department petitioned to terminate Doe’s parental rights for neglect (I.C. § 16-1602(28)(a)); the magistrate court found neglect and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination for neglect under I.C. § 16-1602(28)(a) | Dept.: Doe’s ongoing substance use, unstable housing, and failure to meet children’s medical/educational needs constituted neglect | Doe: He had bonded visits and claimed he had been drug-free since Dec. 2013; trial evidence did not disprove that claim | Held: Substantial competent evidence supported neglect findings (continued meth use, homelessness, failure to meet children’s needs) |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Dept.: Children needed stability; they improved in foster care; Doe had not remedied safety issues or followed his case plan | Doe: Bond with children and generally successful visits argued against termination | Held: Termination was in best interests (stability, permanency, lack of parental improvement, ongoing criminality) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Doe, 156 Idaho 103, 320 P.3d 1262 (Idaho 2014) (standard for termination and best-interest considerations)
- Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe II, 150 Idaho 36, 244 P.3d 180 (Idaho 2010) (parental liberty interest requires clear and convincing proof)
- Browning v. Ringel, 134 Idaho 6, 995 P.2d 351 (Idaho 2000) (trial court need not recite every piece of evidence; purpose of I.R.C.P. 52(a))
- The Highlands, Inc. v. Hosac, 130 Idaho 67, 936 P.2d 1309 (Idaho 1997) (interpretation of I.R.C.P. 52(a) purpose)
- In the Interest of Cheatwood, 108 Idaho 218, 697 P.2d 1232 (Ct. App. 1985) (termination statute’s preventive purpose)
- State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 409, 234 P.3d 733 (Idaho 2010) (trial court must consider admitted evidence; cannot ignore relevant evidence)