Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 162 Idaho 266

Two children (A.C., age 8; S.C., age 3 at termination) were taken into state custody after neglect incidents; mother was arrested and Doe (father) was incarcerated.
The Department filed to terminate parental rights after reunification efforts failed; mother’s rights were terminated by default; Doe’s termination hearing occurred January 5, 2017.
IDOC records showed Doe’s earliest parole eligibility was November 2018; his sentence satisfaction dates ran to 2025. Doe claimed a possible earlier date but gave no evidence.
While incarcerated Doe accrued multiple disciplinary reports and rule violations (drug use, tattooing, disrespect to staff), limiting visits and reflecting poor institutional adjustment.
Social workers and guardian ad litem reported the children were thriving in foster care; A.C. was in counseling and preferred to remain with foster parents.
Magistrate found statutory grounds under I.C. § 16-2005(1)(e) (incarceration likely to continue for substantial period of child’s minority) and that termination was in the children’s best interests; Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether father’s incarceration meets I.C. § 16-2005(1)(e) (likely to remain incarcerated for substantial portion of child’s minority)	State: Doe is currently incarcerated, has long sentences to 2025 and poor in-prison conduct making extended incarceration likely	Doe: He will be eligible for parole soon (claimed possible July 2018 or November 2018) so incarceration won’t be for a "substantial" portion	Held: Substantial competent evidence supports finding Doe likely to remain incarcerated through a substantial portion of the children’s minority (probable to 2025)
Whether termination is in the children’s best interests	State: Children need stability and permanence now; father’s criminal history, drug abuse, unstable housing, and in-prison violations undermine ability to provide stability	Doe: He has a strong bond with children and visits have gone well; termination harms that bond	Held: Termination is in best interests—children thriving in foster care, need stability, and father unlikely to provide required stability now or imminently

Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 474, 235 P.3d 1195 (2010) (clear-and-convincing standard and review framework for termination)
In re Doe (2015-03), 159 Idaho 192, 358 P.3d 77 (2015) (standard of review and substantial evidence governs credibility decisions)
In re Doe (2014-26), 158 Idaho 548, 348 P.3d 163 (2015) (factors to consider in assessing likelihood of continued incarceration)
Matter of Doe (2016-14), 161 Idaho 596, 389 P.3d 141 (2016) (focus on expected future duration of incarceration rather than past)
In re Doe (2014-15), 157 Idaho 765, 339 P.3d 1169 (2014) (best-interest factors: stability, permanency, parental efforts)
In re Doe (2013-15), 156 Idaho 103, 320 P.3d 1262 (2014) (children’s need for stability and certainty informs best-interest analysis)