Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 151 Idaho 605

Doe has long history of methamphetamine use and criminal convictions; incarcerated since J.S.'s birth; J.S. born Jan 28, 2009; case plan filed Aug 2010 with tasks including parenting, visitation, and treatment; Department sought termination on grounds of incarceration and failure to comply with case plan; magistrate terminated parental rights in Dec. 2010; Mother’s rights in a separate appeal; J.S. in foster care with maternal grandmother; appellate review standards discussed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether incarceration for a substantial period supports termination	Doe argues incarceration is not substantial	Department argues incarceration is substantial and ongoing	Yes, substantial period shown
Whether termination for neglect by failing to comply with the case plan is supported	Doe contends noncompliance was not substantial	Department argues substantial noncompliance exists	No, court held incarceration alone sufficient to affirm; neglect argument not reached on its own
Whether termination is in J.S.'s best interests	Doe asserts continued parental relationship outweighs interests	Department emphasizes stability and permanency for a young child	Termination is in J.S.'s best interests

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (fundamental liberty interest; clear and convincing evidence required)
In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2009) (parental rights termination standard; substantial evidence review)
State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 383 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2006) (clear and convincing evidence; substantial grounds for termination)
Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2009) (appellate standard; whether grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence)
Fields v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 289 S.W.3d 134 (Ark. App., 2008) (bright-line approach to substantial period of minority; best interests analysis)