In Re the Termination of the Parental Rights of Doe (2014-22)
157 Idaho 955
| Idaho | 2015Background
- Child (age 3) found wandering near truck traffic after walking 1.9 miles from an RV where mother Jane Doe and her boyfriend lived; police found insufficient child-appropriate food and conflicting explanations from Doe.
- Child taken into shelter care; magistrate entered decree vesting custody with Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare and a case plan was adopted for reunification.
- Reunification efforts failed; Department filed petition to terminate parental rights on May 2, 2014; evidentiary hearing set for August 5, 2014 (Doe did not attend but was represented by counsel).
- Magistrate entered initial findings and a decree in August 2014, then more detailed findings and an "Amended Decree" in September 2014; final judgment (Second Amended Judgment) compliant with I.R.C.P. 54(a) was entered September 24, 2014, terminating Doe's parental rights.
- Magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that Doe neglected the child under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(a) and (b), failed to complete the case plan, had unstable housing and multiple incarcerations, and that termination was in the child's best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court entered default against Doe for her absence | Doe: court entered default without required 3-day Rule 55 notice | State: no default was formally entered; paragraph merely stated basis for default | No default was entered; mere statement that absence "constitutes a basis" is not entry of default (court corrected later findings) |
| Whether findings use clear-and-convincing standard | Doe: initial findings lack explicit clear-and-convincing statement | State: later findings (Sept 12) expressly apply clear-and-convincing standard | Court applied clear-and-convincing standard in Sept. findings; issue resolved against Doe |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were established | Doe: challenges sufficiency based on pre-hearing reports | State: presented evidence at hearing of neglect, failures to comply with plan, custody duration over statutory period | Substantial and competent evidence supported findings of neglect under I.C. § 16-2002(3)(a) and (b) |
| Whether termination was in child's best interests | Doe: argues court must consider parent's ability to change and other factors; contests weight of evidence | State: child needs stability; Doe showed repeated instability, incarceration, failure on major case-plan aspects | Court found termination in child's best interests; findings supported and not disturbed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. McMullen, 156 Idaho 465, 328 P.3d 445 (2014) (formal entry required to constitute default)
- Dep’t. of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207, 233 P.3d 138 (2010) (termination requires clear and convincing proof)
- State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 164 P.3d 814 (2007) (appellate review defers 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 determines witness credibility and weight of evidence)