IDHW v. Jane Doe
49379
| Idaho Ct. App. | May 3, 2022Background:
- Child born Feb 20, 2020 in Coeur d’Alene; both Mother and newborn tested positive for amphetamines and THC and the Department took custody. Mother stipulated to magistrate court jurisdiction.
- April 2020 case plan required assessments and treatment (global assessment, mental-health treatment, substance-abuse treatment and random drug testing, parental fitness evaluation, parenting classes), stable housing and income, visitation, and ICPC compliance.
- Mother had long-term unstable housing (2013–2021), inconsistent engagement in services (discharged from treatment for lack of engagement Aug 2020, ceased treatment June 2021, mental-health counseling discharge Dec 2020), and did not complete case-plan tasks (employment, stable housing, random drug testing, ICPC).
- Department filed to terminate parental rights in April 2021; Mother gave birth to another child in Washington and later entered an 18‑month residential treatment program. Termination hearing occurred Nov 17, 2021.
- Magistrate court found neglect under I.C. § 16‑1602(31)(a) (failure to provide proper parental care) and alternatively under I.C. § 16‑2002(3)(b) (failure to comply with case plan), and held termination was in the child’s best interests. Mother appealed, contesting (a) Department employee Babak’s testimony/credibility, (b) findings of neglect, (c) conclusion Mother failed to comply with the case plan, and (d) best‑interests determination.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/credibility of Department witness (Babak) | Babak lacked proper licensing during portions of the case so her testimony and progress‑reports are incompetent and unreliable | Babak had personal knowledge, corrected a misstatement about licensure on re‑direct, and credibility is for the magistrate to assess | Court: Babak was a permissible witness; credibility and corrected testimony were matters for the trial court; no error in admitting or relying on her testimony |
| Neglect — failure to provide parental care (I.C. § 16‑1602(31)(a)) | Mother argued pandemic and limited early contact hindered bonding and that court overstated failure to understand child’s needs | Dept argued Mother failed to provide financial support, stable housing, safe parenting, and to address mental‑health/substance issues; visitation showed inability to soothe child | Court: Substantial competent evidence supports neglect finding; visitation evidence (inability to soothe, child dysregulation) and other failures support neglect |
| Neglect — failure to comply with case plan (I.C. § 16‑2002(3)(b)) | Mother claimed substantial compliance and that COVID‑19 restrictions limited her ability to comply | Dept pointed to admitted failures: unstable housing, treatment discharges, lack of employment, no proof of program completion, no random drug testing, no ICPC compliance | Court: Mother did not comply with case plan; evidence supports alternative statutory ground for termination |
| Best interests of the child | Mother claimed she made significant efforts and progress; disputed Dept’s characterization of child’s improvement | Dept emphasized child’s stability, permanency, and thriving in foster care and Mother’s ongoing deficiencies | Court: Termination is in the child’s best interests based on objective factors (stability, improvement in foster care, Mother’s substance/mental‑health and housing history) |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizing parents’ fundamental liberty interest in childrearing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (Due process requires clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights)
- Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758 (Idaho 2002) (parental liberty interest in custody/parent–child relationship)
- State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 343 (Idaho 2006) (clear‑and‑convincing evidentiary standard and appellate review guidance)
- Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243 (Idaho 2009) (appellate review uses reasonable inferences supporting trial court’s judgment)
- Tanner v. State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 120 Idaho 606 (Idaho 1991) (best‑interests factors for termination analysis)
- Doe (2015‑03) v. Doe, 159 Idaho 192 (Idaho 2015) (lists factors relevant to best‑interests determination)
- Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 (Idaho 1989) (custody presumption for natural parent not applicable to termination proceedings)