IDAHO DEPT. OF HEALTH & WELFARE v. Doe
260 P.3d 1169
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Three termination petitions were filed in Idaho for Jane and John Doe and their children S.S., T.S., A.H., and S.H., initiating CPS termination proceedings.
- The Department alleged neglect and that termination was in the children’s best interests; John Doe II was not appealing his rights.
- S.S. (2003) and T.S. (2006) were removed originally for an unstable home; S.H. (2010) was removed for unsanitary conditions; A.H. was born in 2009 and later also placed under CPA.
- John Doe was incarcerated from 2007 to 2010 for writing checks; upon release he faced housing, employment, and ongoing legal and support challenges affecting parental capacity.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that each parent neglected their children and that termination was in the children’s best interests; judgments were entered February 3, 2011.
- Appellate standard requires independent review with deference to the trial court’s observations, credibility, and demeanor, and substantial, competent evidence supporting termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of neglect for John Doe | Doe argues no substantial evidence of neglect for S.S. and T.S. | Doe contends he engaged with visits and case plan; housing and income issues were temporary and post-incarceration. | There is substantial and competent evidence of neglect under I.C. §§ 16-1602(25)(a),(b) and 16-2002(3)(b). |
| Authority to petition for, and jurisdiction over, S.H. termination | Department had authority and court jurisdiction under CPA and termination statute to pursue termination of S.H. | Jane Doe argued premature termination and lack of reunification efforts before filing. | Department authorized to petition; court had CPA jurisdiction; termination proceedings valid. |
| Neglect of Jane Doe regarding three older children | Evidence showed persistent failure to provide safe, stable home and resources; case plan noncompliance. | Jane Doe offered arguments of partial compliance and efforts toward stability. | Trial court’s findings of neglect of three older children are supported by substantial and competent evidence. |
| Neglect of Jane Doe regarding youngest child S.H. | Evidence shows neglect via conduct with older children and direct parenting failures for S.H. | Jane Doe contends lack of direct evidence specific to S.H. and seeks protection under due process. | There is substantial and competent evidence of neglect of S.H. under I.C. 16-1602(25)(a),(b), based on the broader CPA conduct and S.H. circumstances. |
| Disability status notice and due process | Department failed to notify Jane Doe of disability status; rights to adaptive services were at issue. | No requirement to notify; evidence allowed to be presented regarding adaptive services. | No error; disability notice is not a prerequisite to consideration; evidence on adaptive services was available and considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207 (2010) (clear and convincing standard; substantial evidence review; independent appellate review)
- Doe I, 151 Idaho 300 (2011) (negative inferences from non-testimony permissible; due process considerations)
- Doe II, 150 Idaho 36 (2010) (no actual harm required to find neglect under statutory framework)
- John Doe (2011-2), 151 Idaho 356 (2011) (termination affirmed where parental responsibilities and stability lacking)
- Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758 (2002) (parental abandonment/neglect cases and contextual considerations)
- Doe v. Doe, 150 Idaho 46 (2010) (just cause defense distinctions; impact on neglect determinations)