IDHW v. Jane Doe
52745
Idaho Ct. App.Jun 17, 2025Background
- Jane Doe is the mother of four children, with parental rights to two previously terminated for neglect and substance abuse.
- The case concerns Doe's youngest child, born with methamphetamine and fentanyl in his system; Doe had used these substances regularly during pregnancy.
- The child was removed from Doe’s care soon after birth due to drug exposure and failure to thrive in Doe’s home (notably, a significant weight loss in the first days post-discharge).
- Doe was incarcerated shortly after the child's removal due to probation violations related to previous offenses, and has remained incarcerated during the case.
- The magistrate court found both neglect and inability to discharge parental responsibilities, citing Doe’s substance abuse history, failure to provide appropriate care, and current incarceration.
- The Department of Health and Welfare sought, and obtained, termination of Doe’s parental rights; Doe appealed the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Doe’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Doe neglect Child under Idaho Code? | Doe minimized drug use impact, said she sought treatment | Chronic drug use, failure to provide needed care, evidence of neglect | Neglect proven by clear & convincing evidence |
| Was Doe unable to discharge her parental responsibilities? | Doe claimed recent stability, employment before incarceration | Long history of substance abuse, failed case plans, current incarceration | Proven by clear & convincing evidence |
| Was aggravated circumstance basis for termination? | Prior terminations alone not enough for termination | Magistrate correctly cited prior involuntary terminations | Court’s decision supported on other grounds |
| Is termination in Child's best interests? | Claimed increased stability, argued child not harmed | Child thriving in foster care, needs stability, Doe’s ongoing instability | Best interests support termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243 (Idaho 2009) (standards for appellate review of termination of parental rights)
- State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 343 (Idaho 2006) (clear and convincing evidence required for termination)
- Roe v. Doe, 143 Idaho 188 (Idaho 2006) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Tanner v. State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 120 Idaho 606 (Idaho 1991) (best interests of the child in termination cases)
- Doe (2015-03) v. Doe, 159 Idaho 192 (Idaho 2015) (factors for best interests determination)