In Re Termination of the Parental Rights of Doe 2009-19, 150 Idaho 201

Petition filed under Idaho Code § 16-1611 seeking removal of Child from Mother due to methamphetamine use, homelessness, and unstable home environment.
Shelter care granted; Child tested positive for methamphetamine at birth and showed withdrawal symptoms, leading to Department custody.
Court-authorized case plan (June 2008) requiring inpatient treatment, random drug testing, housing, employment, parenting class, mental health assessment, and abstention from drugs.
Mother repeatedly failed to comply with case plan tasks (substance abuse treatment, drug tests, mental health assessment delayed, parenting class late), and resumed drug use.
Department moved to terminate parental rights; trial court found neglect and inability to discharge parental responsibilities, with best interests of Child favoring termination.
On appeal, Idaho Supreme Court affirmed termination, concluding sufficient evidence supported neglect, unreunified status within statutory timeframes, and Child’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there substantial evidence Mother failed to comply with the case plan?	Mother: argued substantial compliance; post-termination efforts show progress.	Department: focused on prior noncompliance and ongoing meth use before termination petition.	Yes; the record supports neglect due to noncompliance.
Was there substantial evidence that Department made reasonable reunification efforts?	Mother: claimed insufficient tools and limited visitation impeded reunification.	Department: claim plan was reasonable and efforts adequate; visitation adjustments were tied to attendance and timeliness.	Yes; Court found reasonable efforts given plan and visitation history.
Was termination in Child's best interests supported by substantial evidence?	Mother: asserts strides toward sobriety warrant more time for permanency.	Department: bond with foster family; Child's safety and stability require termination now.	Yes; best interests favored termination due to bonding with foster care and ongoing addiction risk.

Department of Health and Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207 (Idaho 2010) (clear and convincing evidence standard for termination; appellate review deferential to trial court)
In re Dayley, 112 Idaho 522 (Idaho 1987) (trial court credibility and discretion in termination cases)
KMST, LLC v. County of Ada, 138 Idaho 577 (Idaho 2003) (weighing witness credibility and not reweighing evidence on appeal)
State ex rel. Child v. Clouse, 93 Idaho 893 (Idaho 1970) (child cannot rely solely on parental affection for return; permanency necessary)
Beckstead Real Estate Co. v. City of Preston, 147 Idaho 852 (Idaho 2009) (the word 'may' in termination statutes denotes discretion)