IDHW v. Jane Doe, 480 P.3d 143

The Idaho Department received multiple referrals alleging neglect, domestic violence, and parental drug use; Mother tested positive for THC at the 2018 birth of the youngest child, and that newborn tested positive for methamphetamine.
Police found drug paraphernalia and unsafe home conditions; five minor children were removed and placed in foster care; Mother stipulated to CP Act jurisdiction and a reunification case plan was ordered.
Mother had two extended home visits but tested positive for drugs after each; she missed many urinalysis tests and was found to have attempted urine substitution and dilution.
In March 2020 Mother traveled to Georgia without permission, violated Idaho probation, remained in Georgia, and became incarcerated there; she did not complete the case plan requirements (stable housing, income verification, contact with providers, sobriety).
The Department petitioned to terminate parental rights to four children; Mother moved to continue the August 2020 termination hearing because of incarceration and COVID-19 but agreed to testify by video; the magistrate terminated her parental rights for neglect and as in the children’s best interests.
On appeal Mother challenged denial of the continuance and the findings of neglect/best interests; the Court of Appeals concluded Mother failed to present cogent arguments and held substantial and competent evidence supported termination, affirming the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Department)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Motion for continuance of termination hearing	Denial was within discretion; Rule 7.2 permits remote testimony if parties stipulate; proceeding via video was adequate	Mother sought an indefinite continuance until she could return to Idaho from Georgia and appear in person due to incarceration and COVID-19	Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion; Mother stipulated to video testimony and invited error bars appeal; remote testimony satisfied process
Sufficiency of evidence for neglect (I.C. § 16-2002(3)(a)/(3)(b))	Evidence of repeated positive drug tests, attempted urine manipulation, many missed urinalyses, probation violations, failure to maintain housing/income, failure to complete plan supports neglect	Mother asserts love for children and disputes culpability for missed/ manipulated tests but provides no cogent challenge to factual findings	Court: Substantial and competent evidence supports neglect findings under both care/control and case-plan-failure theories
Termination is in children’s best interests	Children improved in foster care; mother lacked stable housing, sobriety, compliance with law; termination promotes stability	Mother argues parental love and unique knowledge of children favor preservation of rights	Court: Objective factors (stability, sobriety, legal problems, children’s progress) support best-interests finding; love alone insufficient

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in child-rearing)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (termination requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Doe, 166 Idaho 546, 462 P.3d 74 (2020) (continuance/ due process context in termination proceedings)
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 421 P.3d 187 (2018) (multi-step review of discretionary rulings)
State v. Barr, 166 Idaho 783, 463 P.3d 1286 (2020) (invited error doctrine precludes challenging court action a party agreed to)
John Doe v. State, 130 Idaho 47, 936 P.2d 690 (1997) (balancing incarcerated parent's right to personal presence against alternative means of testimony)
Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243, 220 P.3d 1062 (2009) (appellate standard: substantial and competent evidence review in termination cases)