In the Matter of: Jane Doe I, A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Petitioner-Respondent, v. JANE DOE (2019-31), Respondent-Appellant.
Docket No. 47443
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
February 11, 2020
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
Judgment terminating parental rights, affirmed.
Aaron Bazzoli, Canyon County Public Defender; Scott J. Davis, Deputy Public Defender, Caldwell, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kathryn T. Garrett, Deputy Attorney General, Caldwell, for respondent.
LORELLO, Judge
Jane Doe (2019-31) appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights. We affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Doe is the mother of a child born in 2011. The child was placed in shelter care after police received a report of parental substance abuse and the child being left without a caregiver. The magistrate court awarded legal custody of the child to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare and approved a case plan for Doe in November 2017. The child was placed with Doe‘s
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal from a decision terminating parental rights, this Court examines whether the decision is supported by substantial and competent evidence, which means such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243, 245-46, 220 P.3d 1062, 1064-65 (2009). The appellate court will indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court‘s judgment when reviewing an order that parental rights be terminated. Id. The Idaho Supreme Court has also said that the substantial evidence test requires a greater quantum of evidence in cases where the trial court‘s finding must be supported by clear and convincing evidence than in cases where a mere preponderance is required. Doe v. Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 346, 144 P.3d 597, 600 (2006). Clear and convincing evidence is generally understood to be evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain. In re Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191, 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006). Further, the trial court‘s decision must be supported by objectively supportable grounds. Doe, 143 Idaho at 346, 144 P.3d at 600.
III.
ANALYSIS
Doe raises two issues on appeal. First, Doe contends that it was impossible for her to complete her case plan due to the child‘s removal from the state and placement in New York. Second, Doe contends that the Department‘s reasonable efforts should be examined on appeal, and the lack of reasonable efforts should be a defense to termination notwithstanding the absence of such a requirement in the statute governing termination. We affirm the decision of the magistrate court terminating Doe‘s parental rights.
We first address Doe‘s arguments regarding the reviewability of the Department‘s reasonable efforts at reunification. Doe contends that, in Idaho, termination of parental rights may occur even if the Department has made no reasonable efforts at reunification. Doe argues this alleged defect potentially jeopardizes federal funding for Idaho‘s foster care system. Finally, Doe asserts “there is no way to review” a finding that the Department has made reasonable efforts other than on a “limited basis” during the child protection case. Doe argues that due process requires “more.” We disagree.
Doe‘s contention that parental rights may be terminated without any reasonable efforts is not supported by law. The Child Protective Act requires reasonable efforts. A petition for removal from the home must state that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal from the home or that reasonable efforts to prevent placement were not required due to aggravated circumstances.
Although Doe contends that Idaho‘s treatment of the federal reasonable efforts requirement “arguably” jeopardizes federal subsidies for foster care, she does not present any argument explaining why such funding could be at risk and her reference to
The Department‘s reasonable efforts, and a magistrate court‘s findings regarding reasonable efforts, are subject to appellate review. There is a statutory right to appeal at several points during the pendency of the child protection proceeding.
There may be important policy reasons that the legislature provided for statutory appellate review of reasonable efforts in the child protection case and did not include reasonable efforts as a required finding once a termination petition has been filed. Such considerations may include concerns for permanency and stability for the child. See
It is well-settled that the Department‘s efforts at reunification are not relevant to the magistrate court‘s termination decision under
1. Statutory basis
Doe argues that moving her child out of state made it impossible for her to complete “important and significant portions” of her case plan making it improper to terminate her parental rights for failure to do so. We hold that the magistrate court‘s determination that Doe neglected her child was supported by clear and convincing evidence.
A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a relationship with his or her child. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758, 760, 53 P.3d 341, 343 (2002). This interest is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 842, 172 P.3d 1114, 1117 (2007). Implicit in the Termination of Parent and Child Relationship Act is the philosophy that, wherever possible, family life should be strengthened and preserved.
Idaho Code Section 16-1602(31)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a child is neglected when the child is without proper parental care and control, or subsistence, medical or other care or control necessary for his or her well-being because of the conduct or omission of his or her
Doe‘s case plan required her to: (1) complete a substance abuse screening and follow all recommendations; (2) complete a mental health assessment and comply with all recommendations made by the mental health provider; (3) complete a parenting course to learn new skills and develop her role as a caretaker; (4) participate in a healthy relationships class or group and demonstrate the skills learned in caring for the child and interacting with others; (5) participate in regular visits with the child to continue creating healthy attachments and demonstrate her ability to implement the techniques learned in parenting classes; (6) demonstrate the ability to provide and care for the child‘s basic, developmental, medical, and other needs as they arise; and (7) maintain stable housing for 120 consecutive days and provide proof of stable housing to the Department. The magistrate court found that during the nearly two-year period that the child was in foster care, Doe failed to “complete the tasks in her case plan that would allow the safe return of her child to her care.” In support of this conclusion, the magistrate court found that communication with Doe was difficult throughout the child protection action; Doe “deflected issues that needed to be addressed and placed blame on others for the issues that prevented [the child] from safely returning to her care“; Doe failed to establish safe and stable housing; Doe‘s mental health issues remained unaddressed; Doe did not avail herself of the opportunity to learn about healthy relationships; Doe‘s visitations with the child were inconsistent and Doe‘s hostility toward the foster mother negatively impacted her visitations; and Doe did not overcome her substance abuse issues despite having nineteen months to do so. With respect to Doe‘s substance abuse, the magistrate court noted that Doe continued to test positive for controlled substance during the child protection case and was not forthright about her substance abuse issues.
The magistrate court also found clear and convincing evidence that Doe did not exercise proper parental care and control over her child. Doe did not provide subsistence, education,
Doe asserts that the magistrate court erred in finding that she neglected the child by failing to complete the case plan because it was impossible for her to complete two of the tasks in the case plan once the child was placed out of state. Specifically, Doe argues that her efforts to accomplish two “important tasks” in her case plan “were utterly frustrated” when the child was moved out of state. The two tasks Doe identifies as impossible to complete are Task 1.1.1.5 (which required her to participate in regular visits with the child in order to create healthy attachments and implement proper parenting techniques) and Task 1.1.1.6 (which required Doe to demonstrate an ability to provide for the child‘s basic developmental, medical, and other needs). However, the magistrate court found that, while moving the child out of state presented difficulties, those difficulties were not insurmountable.
With respect to visitation, the evidence presented at trial showed that the Department attempted to assist with visitation by referring Doe to an independent service provider so that visits could take place through an independent party. However, Doe missed so many visits that she was dropped from the service. The Department resumed facilitating the visitations and Doe again missed the majority of them. After the magistrate court authorized out-of-state placement when the child‘s foster parents moved, the foster family facilitated video calls between Doe and the child, as well as an in-person visit when the family returned to Idaho. However, the in-person visit “did not go well.” Doe‘s failure to participate in scheduled visitations was within her control and not rendered impossible by the child‘s placement out of state.
The child‘s out-of-state placement during the child protection case also did not prevent Doe from demonstrating the ability to provide for the child‘s basic needs. Providing a single box of toys falls short of establishing that Doe has the ability to provide for the child‘s developmental, medical, and other needs, especially the particular needs of Doe‘s child. The evidence showed that the child had medical needs to which Doe was not attentive. The child “got sick quite a bit” and suffered from stomachaches, night terrors, and gallbladder issues that were likely attributable to “a lot of stress and anxiety.” The child also “expresse[d] a lot of fear about being with her mom.” When the social worker tried to speak with Doe about the child‘s
Although Doe made some efforts relating to the tasks in her case plan, which the magistrate court acknowledged, there was substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate court‘s finding of neglect, and Doe has failed to show error in this finding.
2. Best interests of the child
Once a statutory ground for termination has been established, the trial court must next determine whether it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent-child relationship. In re Aragon, 120 Idaho 606, 611, 818 P.2d 310, 315 (1991). When determining whether termination is in the child‘s best interests, the trial court may consider the parent‘s history with substance abuse, the stability and permanency of the home, the unemployment of the parent, the financial contribution of the parent to the child‘s care after the child is placed in protective custody, the improvement of the child while in foster care, the parent‘s efforts to improve his or her situation, and the parent‘s continuing problems with the law. In re Doe, 159 Idaho 192, 198, 358 P.3d 77, 83 (2015); In re Doe, 156 Idaho 103, 111, 320 P.3d 1262, 1270 (2014). A finding that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate parental rights must still be made upon objective grounds. In re Doe, 152 Idaho 953, 956-57, 277 P.3d 400, 403-04 (Ct. App. 2012).
The magistrate court found that it is in the child‘s best interests to terminate Doe‘s parental rights because Doe was not stable enough to parent the child and meet the child‘s needs. The magistrate court found that Doe had “a long road ahead to achieve sobriety and stability” and that the child suffered from stress and other somatic symptoms and needed the permanency of a loving and stable environment. The magistrate court noted that the child was doing well under the care of her foster family and that the family was a permanent placement option for the child.
Doe asserts that, had she been “given a chance” to show “mastery” of the tasks she deemed impossible to complete once the child was moved out of state, it “could have been evidence negating a finding that termination was in the best interest of the child.” Doe contends that the child instead bonded with her foster family, which weighed against Doe in the best interests analysis. Doe was given ample opportunity to complete her case plan during the two
IV.
CONCLUSION
The reviewability of the Department‘s reasonable efforts at reunification does not violate due process. There was clear and convincing evidence that Doe neglected the child and that it is in the best interests of the child for Doe‘s parental rights to be terminated. Accordingly, the magistrate court‘s judgment terminating Doe‘s parental rights is affirmed.
Chief Judge HUSKEY and Judge GRATTON, CONCUR.