Jane Doe (13-23) v. John Doe
315 P.3d 848
Idaho2013Background
- Child born out of wedlock in Aug 2012; Father initially doubted paternity and did not sign at birth.
- Paternity testing in Nov 2012 established Father as the biological father.
- Grandmother filed to terminate Father’s parental rights and to adopt the child on Dec 10, 2012.
- Hearing on Dec 11, 2012 resulted in an order terminating Father’s rights and granting Grandmother adoption.
- Father moved to set aside the order under Rule 60(b); magistrate court granted relief and set aside the order in 2013; final judgment denying Grandmother’s petition entered Aug 9, 2013.
- Grandmother appealed the magistrate court’s decisions, leading to this Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the order | Grandmother argues Father lacked standing after losing rights | Father, as putative father, has standing to challenge termination | Father has standing to challenge the termination order |
| Validity of setting aside the December 11, 2012 order | Order was final and could be appealed; error in setting aside | Order was interlocutory, not final; Rule 60(b) applies to final judgments only | Magistrate did not abuse discretion in setting aside the interlocutory order due to notice issues |
| Whether Father needed to prove parental rights | Grandmother did not prove grounds under 16-2005/16-2006 | Father’s parental rights were not central to this suit; petition denied on merits | Father was not required to establish parental rights in this proceeding |
| Notice and statutory requirements for termination | Notice to Father was required | No final judgment due to lack of notice; statutory notice requirements did not apply yet | Court did not err in vacating the order due to lack of proper notice |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Prevailing party entitled to fees | No frivolous appeal; fees not warranted | No attorney fees awarded on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Roe, 142 Idaho 202 (2005) (standing focus and injury in fact logic in parental rights termination)
- Scona, Inc. v. Green Willow Trust, 133 Idaho 283 (1999) (standing analysis framework for party seeking relief)
- Bagley v. Thomason, 149 Idaho 806 (2010) (standing and injury in fact; remedies for standing queries)
- Abolafia v. Reeves, 152 Idaho 898 (2012) (injury in fact and causal connection requirements for standing)
- Estate of Holland v. Metro. Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 153 Idaho 94 (2012) (final judgments; Rule 54(a) requirements for judgment designation)
- Spokane Structures, Inc. v. Equitable Inv., LLC, 148 Idaho 616 (2010) (judgment content and labeling; distinctions between orders and judgments)
- Idaho First Nat’l Bank v. David Steed and Assocs., Inc., 121 Idaho 356 (1992) (Rule 60(b) applicability to final judgments vs. interlocutory orders)
- Jordan v. Beeks, 135 Idaho 586 (2001) (discretion in granting or denying setting aside orders)
- McGrew v. McGrew, 139 Idaho 551 (2003) (standards for attorney fees on appeal)
- Harrison v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 149 Idaho 201 (2010) (fee-shifting standards on appeal; frivolousness inquiry)