In Re Termination of the Parental Rights of Doe, 162 Idaho 280

Background

Parents (Mother Jane Doe; Father John Doe) had 11 children; seven were minors when proceedings began after alleged historical sexual abuse by Father.
Family previously lived in an Amish community in Washington; Father had confessed there to molesting daughters and the family was shunned; they moved to Idaho in 2015 and later attempted to return to Washington.
Oldest daughter disclosed prolonged sexual abuse by Father; Father and Mother confessed to Washington law enforcement about molestation of two daughters; the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare removed the minor children after the parents planned to move out of state.
Father was later criminally charged in Washington, pleaded guilty to three first-degree child molestation counts, and was sentenced to 10 years plus lifetime supervision.
The Department filed petitions to terminate both parents’ rights; after a two-day evidentiary hearing the magistrate court found multiple statutory grounds (abuse, neglect, and Father’s incarceration) and that termination was in the children’s best interests; both parents appealed.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed termination of Father’s and Mother’s parental rights, finding the magistrate’s findings supported by substantial and competent evidence under the clear-and-convincing standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether magistrate erred in finding statutory grounds to terminate Father’s rights (abuse/neglect/incarceration)	Department: Father committed serial sexual abuse; incarceration prevents reunification	Father: Insufficient proof—no criminal charge for some allegations; hearsay evidence; children didn’t testify	Upheld: Hearsay admitted without objection could be considered; substantial evidence supported findings (abuse and incarceration grounds)
Whether termination of Father’s rights was in children’s best interests	Department: Ongoing, repeated sexual abuse; children unsafe with Father	Father: Children had a loving home; Father cared for children and could provide support while incarcerated	Upheld: Court found termination served children’s safety and best interests; Father did not rebut findings
Whether magistrate erred in finding statutory grounds to terminate Mother’s rights (neglect)	Department: Mother knew or had reason to know of Father’s abuse and failed to protect children	Mother: Evidence unclear on timing/extent of knowledge; not all minor children were shown to be molested	Upheld: Mother’s own admissions and testimony supported finding she knew of abuse and failed to protect; substantial evidence of neglect
Whether termination of Mother’s rights was in children’s best interests	Department: Mother unable/unwilling to provide necessary protection; no expectation of change	Mother: Argued insufficient individualized proof for each child; boys not endangered	Upheld: Court concluded prevention of future harm justified termination; best-interest finding supported by evidence

Key Cases Cited

Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207, 233 P.3d 138 (2010) (clear-and-convincing standard in termination cases)
State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 164 P.3d 814 (2007) (appellate review deferential where trial court applied clear-and-convincing standard)
Anderson v. Harper’s, Inc., 143 Idaho 193, 141 P.3d 1062 (2006) (definition of substantial and competent evidence)
KMST, LLC v. Cnty. of Ada, 138 Idaho 577, 67 P.3d 56 (2003) (trial court’s role in assessing witness credibility and inferences)
In re Doe (2014-22), 157 Idaho 955, 342 P.3d 667 (2015) (consideration of hearsay admitted without objection)
In re Doe, 152 Idaho 910, 277 P.3d 357 (2012) (statutory grounds for termination are independent)
Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 36, 244 P.3d 180 (2010) (state’s role in preventing potential harm to children)
Gem-Valley Ranches, Inc. v. Small, 90 Idaho 354, 411 P.2d 943 (1966) (hearsay admitted without objection may be considered)