339 P.3d 1154
Idaho2014Background
- Guardians Andy and Ronna Bond sought appointment as guardians of Amber Round’s two children; mother Amber Round contested.
- Mother’s default was entered March 17, 2010; her motion to set aside the default was denied March 25, 2010.
- April 8, 2010 magistrate court appointed Guardians due to concerns about a stable home; parents later divorced in 2010.
- Mother served prison term starting 2011; petition to terminate the guardianship was dismissed without prejudice in March 2011; Guardians incurred costs and fees.
- December 8, 2011 Mother again petitioned to terminate; she sought visitation; magistrate denied related requests on January 25, 2012.
- January 9, 2013 magistrate found termination not in the children’s best interests but granted visitation; parties were to bear their own costs; district court affirmed, Guardians appealed to Idaho Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Guardians’ challenge to termination | Guardians rely on exceptions to mootness; potential collateral effects. | No justiciable controversy remains; mootness applies. | District court did not err; issue mootness applies. |
| Authority to grant visitation in guardianship | Guardians posited no visitation authority outside termination; district erred. | Statute allows broader orders after removal or resignation petition. | Court has power to order visitation; guardianship does not bar parental visitation. |
| Sua sponte denial of attorney fees | Magistrate’s sua sponte fee denial without hearing was improper. | Appeal preserved the issue despite lack of prior hearing. | District court erred; need remand to decide costs/fees under Rule 54 and I.C. 12-121. |
| Award of attorney fees on appeal | Prevailing party should be awarded fees on appeal. | Both sides prevailed in part; no fees awarded. | No attorney fees awarded on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodson v. Nez Perce Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 133 Idaho 851 (Idaho 2000) (mootness and collateral consequences considerations)
- Dorman v. Young, 80 Idaho 435 (Idaho 1958) (mootness example and dismissal of hypothetical issues)
- Ameritel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849 (Idaho 2005) (exceptions to mootness; public interest considerations)
- In re Doe, 150 Idaho 432 (Idaho 2011) (parent visitation rights in guardianship context; best interests standard)
- Roe v. Doe, 142 Idaho 174 (Idaho 2005) (guardianship and visitation rights; guardianship does not terminate parental rights)