Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
151 Idaho 846
| Idaho | 2011Background
- John and Jane Doe (father and mother) appeal a magistrate’s order terminating their parental rights as to three biological children: G.H., D.H., L.H.; Mother also has J.B. with another man not party to appeal.
- Children were taken into protective custody after Mother’s October 2009 meth arrest and have remained in state custody.
- June 2010: State petitioned to terminate rights, alleging parental neglect due to Mother’s failure to follow case plan and Father’s incarceration and nonparticipation.
- Two-day termination hearing with testimony from multiple social workers, counselors, a psychologist, foster parent, and the parents; Father largely silent and incarcerated during proceedings.
- Magistrate found both parents neglected under I.C. § 16-1602(25) and I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b), and that termination was in the children’s best interests; State appeals, Court affirms the termination order.
- The Court applies the clear and convincing evidence standard and independently reviews the record, giving weight to the magistrate’s opportunity to observe witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is substantial, competent evidence supporting termination against Mother | State argues neglect evidenced by ongoing case-plan noncompliance and instability | Mother argues she substantially complied with revised plan | Yes; substantial, competent evidence supports neglect and termination |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests for Mother | State contends ongoing neglect and need for stability support termination | Mother contends reunification possible with more time | Yes; Court upholds best-interest finding |
| Whether the State is estopped from seeking termination of Mother’s rights | Mother asserts estoppel due to claimed new plan obligations | State not bound by prior plan revisions | No; estoppel not applicable; termination permitted |
| Whether there is substantial, competent evidence supporting termination of Father’s rights | State asserts Father’s incarceration and lack of participation establish neglect | Father argues lack of evidence of neglect due to confinement | Yes; substantial, competent evidence supports neglect and best-interest finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 260 P.3d 1169 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2011) (standard for termination; substantial evidence review)
- In re Doe, 256 P.3d 764 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2011) (neglect evidence may be considered from prior cases)
- Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe II, 244 P.3d 180 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2010) (reunification timeframes; 16-1629(9))
- Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207, 233 P.3d 138 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2010) (clear and convincing standard; substantial evidence review)