Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
151 Idaho 356
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Father John Doe is the biological father of M.V. (≈14), D.B. (≈13), and A.B. (≈12); he has had primary custody since 2000 after mother relocated to Virginia
- Children were placed in protective custody in October 2009 due to neglect and violence in the home; Department filed CPA petition and obtained temporary custody
- Case plan issued December 2009 addressing housing, income, domestic violence, parenting, health/education; plan amended May 2010
- Trial in November–December 2010 led to termination of parental rights; guardian ad litem and case worker recommended termination due to lack of progress
- Magistrate court found neglect under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(a) and that termination was in the children’s best interests; Father appeals
- Mother in Virginia did not challenge termination; Father argued procedural/timeframe issues and sufficiency of evidence
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time standards in 16-1629(9) apply | Doe argues the court should not consider case-plan noncompliance unless the 16-1629(9) timeframe applies | Court’s finding of neglect under 16-2002(3)(a) does not require 16-1629(9) timing when based on (a) | Court did not err; timing not required for (a) neglect finding |
| Whether failure to complete case plan can support neglect under 16-2002(3)(a) | Doe contends noncompliance should support only 16-2002(3)(b) neglect | Noncompliance can support neglect under (a) when tied to 16-1602(25)(a) or (b) | Yes; noncompliance linked to conduct constituting neglect supports (a) |
| Whether substantial and competent evidence supports neglect finding | Doe contends progress on housing/income and treatment undermines neglect | Record shows domestic violence, instability, untreated issues, and lack of consistent care | There is substantial and competent evidence supporting neglect under (a) and (b) |
| Whether substantial and competent evidence supports best-interest finding | Doe argues bond with children favors reunification | Need for stability and expert testimony support termination | Yes; termination in the children’s best interests is supported by the record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 172 P.3d 1114 (Idaho 2007) (due process requires best-interests and statutory grounds for termination)
- In re Doe 2009-19, 150 Idaho 201, 245 P.3d 953 (Idaho 2010) (nonprogress on case plan can support neglect under 16-1602(25)(a)&(b))
- State, Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 145 Idaho 662, 182 P.3d 1196 (Idaho 2008) (evidence of noncompliance with case plan can support neglect)