Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
162 Idaho 400
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (Doe) has long history of methamphetamine and prescription drug abuse, criminal convictions, and periods of incarceration; she was incarcerated around the child’s birth and pled guilty to federal drug charges.
- Child born August 2014; Idaho Department of Health and Welfare obtained legal custody and child remained in foster care with a family that cared for the child’s siblings.
- Doe completed in-prison treatment, earned sentence reductions, and was released to a re-entry facility in August 2016 with anticipated supervised release in July 2017.
- Department developed a reunification case plan and provided visitation opportunities; Doe had limited in-person visits (about three to five) after release and some communication while incarcerated.
- Child has documented special needs (drug-affected, requires highly structured, predictable environment, constant contact for attachment) and formed strong bonds with foster parents and siblings; mental-health specialist recommended maintaining current placement.
- Magistrate found neglect under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(a) based largely on Doe’s prolonged inability to provide parental care due to incarceration and other conduct, and concluded termination was in the child’s best interests; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe neglected the child under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(a) | Doe: she made available efforts while incarcerated and provided some items/communication; inability due to incarceration should not equate to neglect | State: Doe’s incarceration and history of substance abuse/crime resulted in failure to provide basic needs or parental care | Held: Affirmed neglect finding; incarceration and lack of parental care/support are competent evidence of neglect |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | Doe: expert testimony favored reunification; Doe had made progress (sobriety, employment); more time and visitation would permit bonding | State: child’s special needs, strong bond with foster family/siblings, lack of parenting history by Doe, and risk of trauma from disruption weigh against delaying permanency | Held: Affirmed termination; court prioritized stability for child’s special needs and existing attachments over hope of Doe’s future improvement |
| Whether Department failed reasonable efforts to facilitate bonding (e.g., video visits) | Doe: Department blocked/failed to arrange video meetings, undermining bonding and reunification | State: Department made reasonable efforts overall; video logistics were being reviewed and in-person visits and travel were arranged | Held: Court found reasonable efforts except one status hearing; Department’s alleged video shortcomings did not warrant reversal |
| Whether appellate court should reweigh evidence/credibility | Doe: challenges reliance on allegedly biased witnesses and asks court to favor contrary expert testimony | State: trial court credibility determinations control and substantial evidence supports findings | Held: Appellate court will not reweigh; magistrate’s credibility findings and inferences sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental right is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (termination requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 158 Idaho 764 (2015) (incarceration is competent evidence of neglect)
- Doe v. Doe, 143 Idaho 343 (2006) (substantial-evidence test requires greater quantum where clear and convincing standard applies)
- Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 151 Idaho 846 (2011) (parent’s imprisonment can constitute neglect)