Case Title: State of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare v. Doe Termination of parental rights

Citation: 

Docket Number: 32362

State: idaho

Court: Idaho Supreme Court (civil)

Date: 2007-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
 
Docket No. 32362 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS 
REGARDING: JOHN DOE,                               
----------------------------------------------------------- 
STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF 
HEALTH AND WELFARE,   
                                                    
          Petitioner-Respondent,                    
                                                    
v.                                                  
                                                    
DOE,                                           
                                                    
          Respondent-Appellant.   
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
 
 
 
North Idaho, April 2007 Term 
 
2007 Opinion No. 83  
 
Filed:  May 25, 2007 
 
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk 
 
 
 
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of 
Idaho, Ada County.  Honorable D. Duff McKee, Senior District Judge.  
Magistrate Judge Carolyn Minder. 
 
The decision of the magistrate, affirmed by the district court terminating Jane 
Doe’s parental rights is affirmed. 
 
Ellsworth, Kallas, Talboy & Defranco, P.L.L.C., Boise, for appellant. 
 
Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mary Jo Beig, Deputy 
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 
 
 
 
SCHROEDER, Chief Justice. 
 
 
This is an appeal following the termination of parental rights of Doe. 
I. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
This case began when John Doe was arrested for drunk driving and driving without a 
license with his son in the vehicle.  A Petition for Hearing under the Child Protective Act was 
filed and later amended to include counts of neglect against Jane Doe (“Doe”), alleging she was 
unable to fulfill her parental responsibilities due to mental health problems and unstable housing.  
Ms. Doe did not have custody of her child but had supervised visitation.  She was between 
residences so the child was placed in foster care.  John Doe’s parental rights were terminated 
when it was determined that he was not the child’s biological father.   
The magistrate approved an initial case plan with tasks for Jane Doe to complete.  For six 
months after the case plan, Doe did not address any of the tasks required of her.  Following a 
hearing in which custody was awarded to the Department of Health and Welfare, a second case 
plan was approved which required that Doe: 
(1) participate in and successfully complete a Department approved parenting class 
appropriate for the child’s age and level of development and demonstrate those learned skills in 
her visits with the child. 
(2) participate in and successfully complete a Department approved Cognitive Self 
Change Phase One class. 
(3) participate in a Department approved substance abuse education class to develop an 
awareness of the effect substance abuse has on children. 
(4) provide stable and adequate housing for the child and show proof of that housing to 
the Department social worker. 
(5) agree to allow the assigned social worker from Children and Family Services and the 
Guardian Ad Litem from CASA to make random home visits. 
(6) participate in a psychological evaluation, or provide the Department a recent 
psychological evaluation completed within the last two months, to determine her capacity to 
parent and follow through with the recommendations. 
(7) comply with random urinalysis that will be free of all non-prescribed medications.  
 
After trial, the magistrate court terminated Doe’s parental rights holding that the 
Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Doe was unable to discharge her 
parental responsibilities because of her mental illness.  The court held that the Department also 
proved by clear and convincing evidence that Doe did not complete the conditions of her case 
plan which can form the basis for neglect.  The magistrate court’s decision was upheld by the 
district court sitting in its appellate capacity.  This appeal followed.   
2 
II. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
When reviewing a decision rendered by the district court sitting in its appellate capacity, 
this Court considers the record before the magistrate court independently of the district court’s 
determination, giving due regard to the district court’s analysis.  CASI Foundation, Inc. v. Doe, 
142 Idaho 397, 399, 128 P.3d 934, 936 (2006).  In an action to terminate parental rights where a 
trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, an appellate court 
will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are not supported by substantial and 
competent evidence.  Id.  Substantial competent evidence is “evidence as a reasonable mind 
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”  State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 345-46 144 
P.3d 597, 599-600 (2006) (quoting Folks v. Moscow Sch. Dist. No. 281, 129 Idaho 833, 836, 933 
P.2d 642, 645 (1997)).   
III. 
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO TERMINATE 
DOE’S PARENTAL RIGHTS 
 
The magistrate court found that there was substantial and competent evidence to 
terminate Doe’s parental rights based upon I.C. § 16-2005.  The relevant subsections in effect at 
the time allow for termination of parental rights were: 
b. The parent has neglected or abused the child.  Neglect as used herein shall 
mean a situation in which the child lacks parental care necessary for his health, 
morals and well-being.  
. . . .  
d. The parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities and such inability 
will continue for a prolonged indeterminate period and will be injurious to the 
health, morals or well-being of the child. 
e. If termination is found to be in the best interest of the parent and child, 
where the petition has been filed by a parent or through an authorized agency, or 
interested party. 
 
I.C. § 16-2005 (2003).  A court may grant a termination order if one or more of those conditions 
exist.  Id.; see also Doe, 143 Idaho at 346, 144 P.3d at 600.  The magistrate judge determined 
that there was substantial evidence on which to base a termination of Doe’s parental rights.   
 
Case Plan.  The magistrate judge followed statutory procedures by setting up a case plan 
for Doe to follow in order to work toward returning the child to Doe.  See I.C. § 16-1610 (2001) 
(redesignated in 2005 as I.C. § 16-1621).  Doe did not complete three of the tasks in her case 
3 
plan which required her to: (1) attend a parenting class and apply the knowledge she gained from 
the class in interaction with her child; (2) obtain substance abuse education tailored toward those 
who are family members of substance abusers; and (3) comply with a psychologist’s mental 
health recommendations.     
 
Doe’s case worker testified that Doe did what she could in order to complete the case 
plan, but she did not gain what she was supposed to from the completed tasks.  Part of the case 
plan involved applying what she had learned in a parenting class.  She attended the class, but she 
did not demonstrate that she had learned any skills as required to complete this task.  She was 
also required to comply with her psychologist’s recommendations which included taking 
prescribed medication.  Doe testified that she was taking her medication and would in the future, 
but substantial evidence was presented that she took only the medication she felt she needed and 
did not take all the prescribed medications.  She also did not complete the required substance 
abuse class.  Instead, she went to a substance abuse evaluation.     
Parental Duties.  The magistrate judge held that the evidence was “essentially 
uncontroverted” that Doe is unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of her mental 
illness and that her condition will continue for a prolonged period and is injurious to the health, 
safety, morals and well-being of the child.  Doe has been diagnosed with several different mental 
disorders including bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and anxiety.  She does not believe 
she has severe mental problems.  She characterizes them as slight and believes they will 
eventually go away.  However, there was substantial evidence introduced that Doe will 
consistently require care for her mental disorders.  Evidence was also introduced that her mental 
illness will have a negative impact on her child.   
 
Best Interests.  The magistrate judge held that it was in the best interests of the child to 
terminate Doe’s parental rights.  Evidence in the form of testimony and psychological reports 
indicated that termination of Doe’s parental rights would be in best interest of the child.   
There was substantial and competent evidence to find that Doe’s parental rights should be 
terminated.  The magistrate court’s decision stemmed from many findings of fact in the 
memorandum decision based on testimony and reports from psychologists and case workers.   
4 
IV.  
CONCLUSION 
 
 The decision of the magistrate affirmed by the district court terminating Doe’s parental 
rights is affirmed.   
  
 
Justices TROUT, EISMANN, BURDICK and JONES CONCUR. 
5