Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 162 Idaho 380

Background

Jane Doe, a former foster youth with prior abuse history, gave birth to M.R. in 2011; M.R. was removed from her parents’ home and placed with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare in October 2014.
Doe was arrested for aggravated assault in August 2012 and was incarcerated; her earliest projected release at trial was May 2017, and M.R. had not been in her care since her arrest.
A Department case plan (Dec. 2014) imposed requirements Doe was to complete while incarcerated (e.g., parenting class, counseling, substance‑abuse evaluation); Doe failed to complete key elements after facility transfer.
The Department petitioned to terminate parental rights (Nov. 2015). The magistrate court initially found neglect under I.C. § 16‑2002(3)(b) (failure to comply with case plan) and incarceration grounds, and found termination in the child’s best interest.
This Court vacated and remanded for additional findings on the impossibility defense (In Matter of Doe (2016‑14)). On remand the magistrate made detailed findings that Doe’s misconduct in prison (multiple disciplinary infractions, failure to complete programs) made compliance not impossible but resulting from her own conduct, and again terminated parental rights.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court’s termination based on neglect under I.C. § 16‑2002(3)(b); it did not reach the alternate § 16‑2002(3)(a) ground and declined to revisit the previously decided best‑interest determination.

Issues

Issue	Doe's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether failure to complete the case plan was excused by impossibility while incarcerated	Doe: Commission minutes and DOC records do not prove she willfully avoided parole or program completion; causation is speculative	State: DOC records and Commission minutes show disciplinary infractions and program failures caused prolonged incarceration and prevented reunification; non‑compliance resulted from Doe’s conduct	Held: Impossibility defense rejected; substantial competent evidence shows non‑compliance was caused by Doe’s own conduct, so neglect under §16‑2002(3)(b) proven by clear and convincing evidence
Whether termination may rest on alternative neglect ground (§16‑2002(3)(a))	Doe sought to challenge this ground as well	State relied on alternative finding that Doe could not or did not provide care	Held: Court did not decide §16‑2002(3)(a) because affirmance rests on §16‑2002(3)(b)
Whether termination is in the child’s best interest	Doe attempted to relitigate best‑interest finding	State: Best‑interest was previously found and affirmed	Held: Best‑interest issue not before Court due to law‑of‑the‑case; prior affirmance stands
Standard/weight of evidence required to terminate parental rights	Doe argued insufficiency of Commission/DOC evidence to support causation	State maintained clear and convincing standard satisfied by record and inferences	Held: Clear and convincing standard met; appellate court defers to magistrate’s credibility findings and affirms if substantial competent evidence exists

Key Cases Cited

In Matter of Doe (2016-14), 161 Idaho 596, 389 P.3d 141 (2016) (vacated termination and remanded for findings on impossibility defense)
In re Doe (2014-23), 157 Idaho 920, 342 P.3d 632 (2015) (summary of statutory termination requirements and best‑interest standard)
Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207, 233 P.3d 138 (2010) (clear and convincing burden for termination)
In re Doe (2014-17), 157 Idaho 694, 339 P.3d 755 (2014) (definition of clear and convincing evidence and review standard)
Doe v. Doe, 150 Idaho 46, 244 P.3d 190 (2010) (appellate review defers to magistrate credibility assessments)
In Matter of Doe (2015-07), 159 Idaho 461, 362 P.3d 536 (2015) (affirmance may rest on alternative grounds)
Swanson v. Swanson, 134 Idaho 512, 5 P.3d 973 (2000) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine)
Andersen v. Prof’l Escrow Servs., Inc., 141 Idaho 743, 118 P.3d 75 (2005) (alternative‑grounds rule)