In Re Doe, 256 P.3d 764

Magistrate court terminated paternal rights after finding Father neglected his three children under I.C. 16-2002(3)(a) and 16-2002(3)(a)’s definitions in 16-1602(25).
Father had primary custody since 2000; children were in Virginia with Mother who later returned them to Idaho in 2008; Mother did not challenge termination.
Children were placed in foster care after Father’s arrest for domestic violence and alleged violence by the children; case filed under the Child Protective Act in October 2009.
A case plan (Dec 2009; amended May 2010) required housing, income, domestic violence treatment, substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and medical/educational coordination for the children; Father largely failed to attend and complete tasks.
Evidence at trial showed persistent stability and housing/income concerns, incomplete treatment, limited progress on case plan, and ongoing concerns about safety and need for structure for the children.
Guardian ad litem and caseworker recommended termination due to lack of meaningful progress and the need for stability; trial focused on whether termination was in the children’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 16-1629(9) timing applies to neglect finding.	Doe argues time standards bar considering case-plan failure for neglect.	Doe contends court should apply timing rules to case-plan failures.	Court held timing not required for neglect under 16-2002(3)(a); timing limited to 16-2002(3)(b).
Whether failure to complete case-plan tasks can support neglect under 16-2002(3)(a).	Doe argues case-plan failure belongs to 16-2002(3)(b) only.	Doe contends case-plan noncompliance can support 16-2002(3)(a) when tied to broad neglect definitions.	Court held noncompliance can support 16-2002(3)(a) when linked to the broad 16-1602(25)(a)/(b) neglect definitions.
Is there substantial and competent evidence supporting neglect under 16-2002(3)(a).	Doe contends progress on housing, employment, DV treatment, and parenting showed improvement and undermines neglect.	Doe argues evidence shows adequate progress and that neglect not proven.	There is substantial and competent evidence supporting neglect under 16-2002(3)(a).
Is there substantial and competent evidence that termination is in the best interests of the children?	Doe asserts bond with Father and potential for reunification; argues foster care lacks stability but not in best interest to terminate.	Doe emphasizes stability needs and that Father cannot provide a stable environment.	There is substantial and competent evidence that termination is in the children’s best interests.

State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839 (Idaho 2007) (parental rights require best interests plus a statutorily approved ground)
In re Doe 2009-19, 150 Idaho 201 (Idaho 2010) (noncompliance with case plan can support neglect under 16-1602(25)(a) & (b))
State, Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 145 Idaho 662 (Idaho 2008) (neglect evidence and case plan noncompliance may support termination)
In re Doe, 149 Idaho 401 (Idaho 2010) (continuity in housing/employment/abstinence supports 16-1602(25)(b) neglect)