Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
152 Idaho 797
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Doe has extensive criminal history including battery, aggravated assault, DUI, and drug use; he had no physical custody of his children since their birth years (2008, 2009).
- Mother also has a history of criminal charges and substance abuse; CPA petitions led to shelter care and Department custody in 2010, with a guardian ad litem appointed.
- Children were adjudicated Indian children under ICWA; the Department placed them with their maternal grandfather in foster care; case plan required Doe to engage in visits, employment, housing, and treatment while incarcerated.
- Permanency petition filed in April 2011; Mother consented to termination; Doe’s parental rights were terminated on November 7, 2011, appeals followed.
- ICWA proceedings required active efforts and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody would cause serious damage; expert testimony supported these findings.
- Appellate court affirmed termination, concluding there was substantial and competent evidence for best interests, active efforts, and likely harm if parental rights were continued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was termination in the best interests of the children? | Doe argues no evidence supports best interests. | Department contends children thrived with grandfather and stability favors termination. | Yes; substantial evidence supports best interests. |
| Did the Department make active efforts under ICWA to prevent breakup of the Indian family? | Doe contends efforts were not adequate given incarceration. | Department made efforts appropriate to facts, including visitation and plan development. | Yes; active efforts were substantial and appropriate. |
| Was there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody would cause serious emotional or physical damage to the children under ICWA 1912(f)? | Doe challenges the sufficiency of expert testimony and findings. | ICWA expert and case manager supported the risk of harm absent termination. | Yes; evidence supported beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Did incarceration affect the scope of required active remedial efforts under ICWA? | Doe asserts limited active efforts due to confinement. | Court recognizes incarceration length shapes required efforts. | Yes; incarceration length appropriately limited active efforts, which were still adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights require clear and convincing evidence)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1978) (due process considerations in termination)
- In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 203 P.3d 689 (Idaho 2009) (parental rights termination standards in Idaho CPA/ICWA context)
- State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 172 P.3d 1114 (Idaho 2007) (statutory grounds for termination independently viable)
- Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243, 220 P.3d 1062 (Ct.App. 2009) (substantial evidence standard for termination under CPA)
- A.A. v. State, Dep't of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1999) (case-by-case active vs passive remedial efforts; incarceration affects duties)
- Dashiell R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 222 P.3d 841 (Alaska 2009) (active efforts must help parent develop required skills)
- Doe v. Dep't of Health & Welfare, 151 Idaho 605, 261 P.3d 882 (Ct.App. 2011) (factors in determining best interests when parent incarcerated)