Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 160 Idaho 824

Background

Mother (five children born 2007–2015) was the subject of a child protective action after reports of ongoing neglect and A.L. being born methamphetamine-positive; children were placed in IDHW custody in Aug–Sep 2014 and remained in foster care.
IDHW approved multiple case plans requiring stable housing, GED progress, substance‑abuse treatment, and compliance with court/family drug court rules; Mother repeatedly failed to comply and was discharged from treatment programs and the Haven Shelter.
Mother has an extensive drug and criminal history (multiple arrests, probation violations, incarcerations, and admitted methamphetamine use including while pregnant); intermittent brief compliance occurred while in controlled settings.
IDHW sought termination in Aug 2015 (later amended to add the newborn); magistrate approved permanency plan for adoption and authorized suspension of reunification after continued noncompliance.
After a multi‑day termination hearing (IDHW exhibits and testimony, guardian ad litem and case manager testimony), the magistrate terminated Mother’s parental rights under statutory grounds including inability to discharge parental responsibilities. Mother appealed.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	IDHW’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports finding Mother unable to discharge parental responsibilities	Recent months of compliance (8+ months clean while on probation/family drug court, GED/work progress, maintained visitation) show changed conduct and preclude termination	Long history of noncompliance, relapse when not in controlled settings, unstable housing/employment, probation violations and incarcerations show inability to parent long‑term	Affirmed: substantial, competent evidence supports inability-to-discharge finding (clear & convincing standard)
Whether termination is in children’s best interests	(Mother did not meaningfully contest best‑interests on appeal)	Children are thriving, bonded to pre‑adoptive foster family; need permanency and stability; Mother cannot provide safe, stable home soon	Affirmed: termination is in best interests
Whether IDHW made reasonable reunification efforts	IDHW’s actions contributed to Mother’s expulsion from family drug court and probation violations; some testimony was misleading	IDHW provided multiple treatment placements, shelter options, parenting services and four case plans; Mother’s own conduct, not IDHW omissions, caused failures	Affirmed: IDHW made reasonable efforts to reunify; Mother’s due‑process claim inadequately briefed and not considered
Whether magistrate properly applied clear‑and‑convincing standard on appeal	Mother asserts her limited recent compliance negates clear‑and‑convincing proof of neglect/inability	IDHW points to cumulative historical evidence and testimony showing high probability of ongoing risk	Affirmed: appellate independent review finds substantial competent evidence meeting clear‑and‑convincing standard

Key Cases Cited

Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 158 Idaho 764, 351 P.3d 1222 (court will not disturb termination if substantial, competent evidence supports it)
State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 145 Idaho 662, 182 P.3d 1196 (attendance or brief compliance under supervision insufficient to overcome history of neglect)
In re Doe, 160 Idaho 154, 369 P.3d 932 (IDHW reasonable‑efforts test and effect of intervening incarceration)
Roe v. Doe, 142 Idaho 174, 125 P.3d 530 (statutory grounds for termination are independent; any one ground supports termination)