Jane Doe I v. John Doe II John Doe II and Jane Doe II v. Jane Doe I and John Doe I, 161 Idaho 67

Parents divorced in 2011 with a custody order reserving school-year custody and D.O. visitation; initial (First Custody Order) awarded Mother primary custody during the school year and reasonable visitation to Father.
Mother attempted an out-of-town move (Idaho Falls) in 2013; Father obtained an ex parte order requiring the children to remain and attend school in Rexburg; Mother briefly moved children and then moved back after hearing.
Father later filed to modify custody (seeking primary custody of the three youngest) following strained relationships with the two oldest children; trial produced Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Sept. 1, 2015) awarding Father primary custody of the three youngest (Second Custody Order), citing alleged parental alienation by Mother.
Mother moved to reconsider; at the reconsideration hearing the magistrate announced a 50/50 rotating schedule, then in January 2016 ordered immediate implementation and later adjusted to week-on/week-off in a First Amended Judgment (Fourth Custody Order); permissive appeal to Idaho Supreme Court granted.
Idaho Supreme Court reversed the magistrate’s modification to award Father primary custody of the three youngest, concluding the record lacked substantial evidence of the required material, substantial, and permanent change (primarily rejecting the alienation findings) and remanded to reinstate the First Custody Order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether magistrate properly modified custody from First Custody Order	Mother: no material, substantial, permanent change to justify modification; alienation finding unsupported	Father: changes (move, summer schedules, alienating acts) justified modification in children’s best interests	Reversed — no sufficient evidence of material/substantial change; alienation not established
Whether magistrate could alter Second Custody Order without new findings	Mother: magistrate abused discretion by changing custody without new findings	Father: magistrate has discretion; changes justified by prior findings and reports	Court declined to reach further Father claims after reversing modification (primary error was lack of legal support for alienation finding)
Whether religion improperly influenced custody decision	Mother: court improperly considered religious remarks/indoctrination as factor	Father: religion was illustrative of alienation, not dispositive	Court warned courts must avoid intruding into religion; religious considerations here impermissibly colored reasoning
Attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-121	Mother: sought fees as prevailing party	Father: sought fees	Denied — appeal not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation

Sweet v. Foreman, 159 Idaho 761, 367 P.3d 156 (recognized standard for reviewing magistrate custody modifications on permissive appeal)
Pieper v. Pieper, 125 Idaho 667, 873 P.2d 921 (material, substantial, permanent change standard for custody modification)
Evans v. Sayler, 151 Idaho 223, 254 P.3d 1219 (relation of changed circumstances to best interest of child; standard for modification)
Thurman v. Thurman, 73 Idaho 122, 245 P.2d 810 (parental conduct that alienates children is grounds for custody modification)
Osteraas v. Osteraas, 124 Idaho 350, 859 P.2d 948 (courts must avoid entanglement in religious matters absent compelling reasons)
Doe v. Doe, 149 Idaho 669, 239 P.3d 774 (attorney-fee standard on appeal under I.C. § 12-121)