Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
389 P.3d 141
| Idaho | 2016Background
- Jane Doe (mother) has long DHS involvement; removed from her parents for abuse as a child; aged out of foster care; gave birth to M.R. in 2011.
- Doe was arrested for aggravated assault in Aug. 2012 when M.R. was 16 months; she signed temporary guardianship to her parents and has not had custody since.
- Doe was sentenced to a five-year term (two years fixed) and remained incarcerated; earliest projected release testimony was May 2017.
- M.R. entered Department care Oct. 2014; a case plan (Dec. 2014) included tasks for Doe to complete while incarcerated; Doe failed to complete certain requirements.
- Department petitioned to terminate parental rights (Nov. 2016); magistrate found two statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence: (1) neglect for failing to comply with the case plan (I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b)); and (2) parent likely to remain incarcerated for a substantial portion of the child’s minority (I.C. § 16-2005(1)(e)); magistrate also found termination was in the child’s best interest.
- Supreme Court vacated the termination and remanded for additional findings because the magistrate applied incorrect legal standards and failed to determine whether Doe bore responsibility for noncompliance and whether future incarceration was likely for a substantial period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to complete case plan under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b) can be excused by impossibility (incarceration) | Doe: noncompliance was beyond her control; impossibility is a defense; she did what she could while incarcerated | Dept: Doe culpable because misconduct/disciplinary issues in prison prevented completion; noncompliance alone satisfies statutory neglect | Court: Impossibility can be raised; trial court must find whether parent is responsible (directly or indirectly) for noncompliance — mere inability without responsibility is insufficient |
| Whether magistrate applied correct temporal focus under I.C. § 16-2005(1)(e) (incarceration ground) | Doe: five-year sentence is not necessarily a "substantial period" of an 18-year minority; focus should be on future incarceration likelihood | Dept: five years is a substantial portion; past duration relevant | Court: Magistrate erred by focusing on past aggregate incarceration; statute requires finding that parent is likely to remain incarcerated for a substantial period during the child’s minority (prospective analysis) |
| Whether written findings prepared/approved by a judge who did not hear the trial were acceptable | Doe: trial judge’s oral findings should control; written findings included errors and extra grounds not litigated | Dept: (implicit) adoption of proposed findings was permissible | Court: Troubled by practice; oral findings control; remand required because written findings included unlitigated grounds and asserted facts not supported by the hearing judge’s oral findings |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | Doe: Department failed to prove best interests; written findings on best interests were erroneous | Dept: Evidence showed child’s stability in foster/pre-adoptive placement and need for permanency | Court: Independently reviewed record and found substantial competent evidence that termination was in M.R.’s best interests, but remand still required for correct factfinding on statutory grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (recognizing parental rights as a fundamental liberty interest)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental liberty interest in care, custody, and control of children)
- Doe I v. Doe II, 228 P.3d 980 (Idaho) (willfulness requires ability; used in analysis of fault/responsibility for noncompliance)
- In re Adoption of Doe, 141 P.3d 1057 (Idaho) (consideration of just cause for failure to provide support/contact)
- In re Doe, 339 P.3d (Idaho) (court cited prior Idaho termination decisions on case-plan compliance)
- Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 260 P.3d 1169 (Idaho) (upholding termination where record showed parent’s actions/inactions caused failure to complete case plan)
- Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 261 P.3d 882 (Idaho) (Ct. App.) (discussion of “substantial” incarceration and parent responsibility)
- In re Doe, 348 P.3d 163 (Idaho) (statutory history and prospective focus for incarceration ground)
- Champagne v. Welfare Div. of Nevada State Dep’t of Human Res., 691 P.2d 849 (Nev.) (parent must be at fault; cannot terminate for requirements impossible to satisfy)
(Notes: The Court remanded for written findings applying the correct legal standards: (1) determine whether noncompliance was the parent's responsibility; (2) make a prospective finding whether the parent is likely to remain incarcerated for a substantial period of the child's minority. The Court affirmed that, on the record, termination was in the child’s best interests but vacated the termination because both statutory grounds were decided under erroneous standards.)