362 P.3d 536
Idaho2015Background
- John Doe II is incarcerated; he is the biological father of H.T. (born 2002).
- H.T. resides with John Doe I and Jane Doe, who are stationed overseas in the Air Force.
- Jane Doe never received child support from John Doe II; no child-support order exists.
- John Doe I filed a petition (pro se) to terminate Doe II’s parental rights and to adopt H.T.
- The magistrate court terminated Doe II’s parental rights; the court’s memorandum and date entries conflict with its oral ruling.
- This Court vacates the magistrate court’s order and remands for new findings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of John Doe I to petition | Doe II argues I lacked standing | Magistrate held I had standing under 16-2004(d) or as in loco parentis | Doe II waived challenge to standing; court sustains other grounds for remand |
| Oral findings vs. written conclusions inconsistency | Oral ruling favored willful abandonment | Written decision contradicts oral findings | Vacate termination order; remand for new findings of fact and law |
| Abandonment evidence | Evidence supports abandonment due to willful failure to maintain relationship | Incarceration alone may support termination if in child’s best interests | Remand; focus on whether willful abandonment proved by clear and convincing evidence |
| Best interests vs. incarceration grounds | Termination justified by best interests given incarceration | Incarceration can justify termination under 16-2005(1)(e) | Remanded for proper factual findings; not deciding on merits yet |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188 (2006) (whether a parent’s relationship is normal varies by case; statutory willfulness required)
- In re Doe (2014-17), 157 Idaho 694 (2014) (independent review of magistrate record with deference to judge who observed witnesses)
- In re Doe (2014-23), 157 Idaho 920 (2015) (substantial, competent evidence standard for termination of parental rights)
- Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 36 (2010) (ground for termination must be clear and convincing; parent’s liberty interest preserved)
- Andersen v. Professional Escrow Servs., Inc., 141 Idaho 743 (2005) (appellate review limits when issues not argued on appeal)
- Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87 (1991) (avoid unnecessary issues; standard for appeal on alternative grounds)