Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
151 Idaho 300
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Children Son and Daughter were injured in August–October 2009 in the home; Father John Doe admitted causing injuries to Son and was alleged to have abused Son, with Daughter present during incidents.
- Petition filed under Idaho CPA in Sept 2009 seeking shelter care and removal from home; court ordered shelter care and Department custody pending adjudication.
- Shelter care hearings were held Sept 29, 2009 (Son) and Oct 2, 2009 (Daughter); notices stated right to counsel; public defenders were appointed.
- Adjudicatory hearing held Oct 21, 2009; court vested legal custody of both children in the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare on Oct 28, 2009.
- Disposition hearings Nov 10–13, 2009 kept children in Department custody with an extended home visit; Jane Doe appeals on multiple grounds.
- Supreme Court affirms jurisdictional findings but reverses the Department custody vesting, granting protective supervision instead of Department custody, due to lack of evidence that removal was contrary to welfare or that keeping custody with Department was best.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate violated Jane Doe's right to counsel at shelter care hearings | Doe argues she lacked meaningful opportunity to consult counsel prior to stipulating | Department/State contends notices fulfilled statutory requirements | No error in notice; some lack of explicit meet-with-attorney rights, but no prejudice shown |
| Whether the court had jurisdiction over the children when only one parent abused | Statute requires jurisdiction where a parent abused; cannot rely on sole abuse | Doctrine allows jurisdiction where one parent abused, due to risk to child | Court could take jurisdiction over Son for abuse by John Doe; Daughter's jurisdiction based on shared household and exposure to abuse |
| Whether the adjudicatory finding of jurisdiction was supported after trial | Court properly found jurisdiction under 16-1603; one-abuser suffices for Son and Daughter's exposure | Finding lacked explicit support that Daughter was exposed to abuse and thus at risk | Finding supported; court acted within discretion in exercising jurisdiction over Daughter after evidence of exposure |
| Whether vesting legal custody in the Department was an abuse of discretion | Jane Doe willing to care; John Doe sole abuser; protective supervision sufficient | Court may vest in Department if contrary to welfare and best interests; safety concerns justify removal | Reversed; no substantial evidence that continuation at home would be contrary to welfare or that Department custody was best; protective supervision appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670 (Idaho 2008) (standards for reviewing discretionary decisions in CPA cases)
- Eby v. State, 148 Idaho 731 (Idaho 2010) (discretionary-review framework for CPA decisions)
- State v. Hensley, 145 Idaho 852 (Idaho 2008) (statutory interpretation and ambiguity in CPA context)
- Mercer v. Winton Lumber, 143 Idaho 108 (Idaho 2006) (principles for interpreting statutory language and legislative intent)
- Gillihan v. Gump, 140 Idaho 264 (Idaho 2004) (plain meaning rule and when ambiguity requires broader analysis)
- Yzaguirre v. State, 144 Idaho 471 (Idaho 2007) (consideration of policy and legislative history in ambiguous statutes)
- Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1976) (limits on drawing adverse inferences from invoking Fifth Amendment in civil context)
- Martin v. Vincent, 34 Idaho 432 (Idaho 1921) (parental rights presumption of fitness; burden on petitioning party to prove need for removal)