Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 389 P.3d 192

Child born Nov. 2013; mother tested positive for amphetamine and had hospitalizations; child removed to Department custody multiple times and placed in foster care three times by age two.
In Oct. 2014 police found the child unsupervised while the mother was unconscious; at that time Doe (father) said he could not care for the child because of work, limited resources, and lack of child-care skills.
Doe was placed on a case plan (Nov. 2014) requiring parenting classes, demonstration of basic-care skills, and Department-approved child care; he completed classes and had visits but never secured approved child care.
Doe relied exclusively on his three teenage children (recent immigrants from Ethiopia) to supervise the toddler while Doe worked two jobs; caseworkers found the teens unqualified and intermittently unavailable.
The Department petitioned to terminate parental rights; after continuances and amended plans, the magistrate terminated Doe’s parental rights in Aug. 2016 on grounds of neglect and found termination was in the child’s best interests.
On appeal Doe challenged sufficiency of evidence as to neglect and best interests; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Doe's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination for neglect	Doe argued he participated in the case plan, completed parenting classes, and has a right to choose caregivers (including relying on teen children)	Father failed to provide proper parental care/supervision, refused to secure Department-approved child care, missed or cancelled visits, and failed to meet primary case-plan requirements	Affirmed: substantial competent evidence supports neglect finding (failure to supervise; failure to comply with case plan and 22 months’ custody rule)
Whether termination is in the child’s best interests	Doe contended he is willing to provide, would give up a job, and wants to parent	Child suffered chronic instability and trauma; exhibits maladaptive behavior and resists visits; foster placement provides stability and meets needs	Affirmed: termination is in child’s best interests to secure stability and responsible caregivers

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes parents’ fundamental liberty interest in raising children)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (grounds for terminating parental rights must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758 (2002) (discusses parental liberty interest in Idaho law)
State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839 (2007) (due process protections in termination proceedings)
Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243 (2009) (standard for appellate review: substantial and competent evidence; heightened quantum where clear and convincing proof required)
In re Doe, 143 Idaho 188 (2006) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard in termination context)