1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39798

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

TERMINATION OF THE PARENTAL 

RIGHTS OF JANE (2012-02) DOE.

)

)

)

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & 

WELFARE,

Petitioner-Respondent,

and

GUARDIAN AD LITEM,

Respondent,

v.

JANE (2012-02) DOE,

Respondent-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 540

Filed: June 27, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial 

District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cathleen MacGregor-Irby, Magistrate. 

Decree terminating parental rights, affirmed.

Alan E. Trimming, Ada County Public Defender; Adam C. Kimball, Deputy 

Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mary Jo Beig, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

LANSING, Judge

Jane Doe appeals from the order of the magistrate court terminating her parental rights to 

her youngest son (hereinafter Son), who was twenty-three months old at the time of trial. Doe 

asserts that the order was not supported by substantial and competent evidence of neglect and 

that termination was not in the best interests of Son. We affirm.
2

I.

BACKGROUND

Doe has five children, including Son.1 Between 1999 and 2012, thirty-one child 

protection referrals regarding Doe and her children were made raising concerns of physical 

abuse, physical neglect, medical neglect, domestic violence, sexual abuse, substance abuse, and a 

hazardous home environment. In 2006, three of Doe’s older children were placed in foster care 

as a result of neglect, and Doe was provided treatment for substance abuse through various 

inpatient and outpatient treatment programs. In 2008, Doe’s parental rights to one of her 

children were terminated. Doe gave birth to Son in April 2010, at which point the 2006 child 

protection case was still ongoing.2 Following the birth of Son, the Department of Health and 

Welfare (hereinafter Department) provided Doe with access to preventative services encouraging 

family preservation in the home in an effort to prevent Son from being placed in foster care. 

In April 2011, shortly after Son’s first birthday, Doe was involved in an altercation with 

her sister and arrested for battery, leaving no one with legal authority to care for Son.3

 As a 

result, Son was declared to be imminent danger, and eventually placed in foster care.4 Law 

enforcement officers reported that Doe was intoxicated at the time of arrest, and Doe admitted 

that she had been drinking and taking pain medication. The Department assigned the new child 

protection case involving Son to April Crosby, the same case manager and social worker who 

had been working with Doe since 2007 as part of the previous child protection case. 

On June 24, 2011, the court approved a case plan designed to prepare Doe to regain 

custody of Son. The case plan called for Doe to: (1) complete an updated substance abuse 

evaluation and follow all recommendations, including random drug testing; (2) work with her 

support system and treatment provider to develop a relapse prevention plan and provide the 

 

1 Son’s father consented to the termination of his parental rights, and is not participating in 

this appeal. 

2 As of February 2012, one of Doe’s children remained in foster care, and another had 

“aged out” of care. 

3 Doe testified that the battery charge was eventually amended to a charge of disturbing the 

peace. 

4 It appears from the record that Doe waived the shelter care hearing and consented to the 

Department’s temporary custody of Son pending a case plan hearing. 
3

Department with a copy; (3) complete psychological and neuropsychological testing and follow 

all recommendations; (4) obtain and maintain legitimate income or employment and provide 

proof to the Department; (5) obtain and maintain adequate housing; (6) participate in services 

addressing Son’s special needs including the Infant Toddler Program, and follow all child care 

recommendations; and (7) attend Son’s medical and therapy appointments, communicate with 

providers to understand Son’s needs, and follow all recommendations. 

On October 28, after a review hearing, the court made the following findings:

[Doe] has not demonstrated the ability to protect her children in the past

under similar circumstances and family conditions. Three of [Doe]’s children 

entered foster care in March 2006 due to issues of homelessness, substance abuse 

and domestic violence within her family. [Doe] does not have adequate resources 

to meet the needs of her children and is currently struggling to meet her own 

needs.

[Doe] completed a substance abuse evaluation and a psychological,

neuropsychological evaluation. [Doe] has not engaged in treatment for substance 

abuse and mental health despite referrals for services. . . . [Doe] ceased 

participation in services through the Infant Toddler Program, resulting in [Son’s]

file being closed. [Doe] has been provided with [Son’s] appointment information 

and assistance with transportation including gas vouchers and directions. [Doe]

has not attended any of [Son’s] assessments or appointments through the Elk’s 

Pediatric Abilities Clinic.

The court approved the Department’s plan for termination of parental rights and adoption as the 

permanent plan for Son. Shortly thereafter, the Department filed a petition for the termination of 

Doe’s parental rights based on three counts of neglect stemming from Doe’s unaddressed 

substance abuse and mental health issues, instability in housing and employment, and inability to 

provide for Son’s medical, mental health and developmental needs. As of the time of trial, in 

March 2012, Doe had not fully complied with any of the case plan objectives, and the magistrate 

entered an order terminating her parental rights based on neglect and the best interests of Son. 

Doe appeals.

II.

ANALYSIS

A parent has a fundamental liberty interest, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of 

the United States Constitution, in maintaining a relationship with his or her child. Idaho Dep’t of 

Health & Welfare v. Doe II, 150 Idaho 36, 41, 244 P.3d 180, 185 (2010); In re Doe, 146 Idaho 

759, 761-62, 203 P.3d 689, 691-92 (2009). Therefore, the requisites of due process must be met 
4

when the Department intervenes to terminate the parent-child relationship. Due process requires 

that the Department prove grounds for terminating a parent-child relationship by clear and 

convincing evidence. Doe, 146 Idaho at 761, 203 P.3d at 691. Where a trial court has expressly 

identified 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. State v. 

Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 535, 164 P.3d 814, 815 (2007). Substantial, competent evidence is such 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In re Doe, 143 

Idaho 343, 345-46, 144 P.3d 597, 599-600 (2006). Since “the magistrate court has the 

opportunity to observe witnesses’ demeanor, to assess their credibility, to detect prejudice or 

motive and to judge the character of the parties,” this Court will draw all reasonable inferences in 

favor of that court’s judgment. Doe II, 150 Idaho at 41, 244 P.3d at 185 (internal quotation and 

citation omitted).

Idaho Code § 16-2005 enumerates several grounds for termination of the parent-child 

relationship, including parental neglect of the child. The statute authorizes termination only if an 

enumerated ground for termination exists and termination is in the child’s best interests. I.C. 

§ 16-2005(1). A child may be found to be “neglected” under any of several statutory definitions 

of neglect. See I.C. § 16-2002(3)(a) (incorporating the definitions of the term “neglected” in 

Idaho Code § 16-1602(25)(a)-(d)). As relevant to the allegations in the present case, a child is

“neglected” if the child is “without proper parental care and control, or subsistence, medical or 

other care or control necessary for his well-being because of the conduct or omission of his 

parents . . . or their neglect or refusal to provide them.” I.C. § 16-1602(25)(a). 

A. Neglect

On appeal, Doe asserts the magistrate’s findings of neglect were not supported by clear 

and convincing evidence. The magistrate made findings of neglect based on: (1) Doe’s inability 

to provide for Son’s special needs; (2) Doe’s inability to provide housing or sufficient income to 

support Son; and (3) Doe’s failure to complete recommend mental health and substance abuse 

programs.5

 With respect to each finding, the magistrate expressly identified and applied the 

 

5 Although the magistrate court’s Memorandum Decision and Order entered March 15, 

2012, containing its principal findings and conclusions, did not make an explicit finding that 

Doe’s acts and omissions described therein amounted to neglect of Son, such a finding is implicit 

in the document, which concluded that Doe’s parental rights should be terminated. Further, an 
5

clear and convincing standard, thus, we review to determine whether the findings were supported 

by substantial and competent evidence

1. Ability to provide for Son’s special needs

With respect to Son’s special needs, the magistrate stated, in part:

The clear and convincing evidence before this court is that [Doe] does not

appreciate or understand the special needs that [Son] has. [Doe] showed no 

interest in enrolling [Son] in the Infant Toddler Program or participating in his 

therapy appointments.

[Doe] does not have any of her five children in her care. [Doe] has had

interventions and supports put in place to help her become a better parent. The 

clear and convincing evidence is that [Doe] cannot parent this child now, and 

there is no reason to believe that she will be able to in the future.

Doe asserts that the magistrate erroneously concluded that she was unwilling or unable to 

provide for Son’s special needs because it was difficult for her to attend Son’s therapy 

appointments, because her attendance at the appointments was not necessary, and because the 

Department could have done more to help her understand and provide care for Son’s special 

needs. Doe does not dispute that Son exhibited developmental delays requiring special care. To 

address Son’s special needs, Doe’s case plan directed her to “participate with her son’s providers 

including, but not limited to, the Infant Toddler Program . . . follow all recommendations in 

caring for her child . . . attend her son’s medical and[/]or therapy appointments and . . . 

communicate with providers to understand her son’s needs.” Doe was given two referrals to 

enroll Son in an in-home therapy program through the Infant Toddler Program, which would 

have included individualized “parent coaching” to teach Doe to address Son’s special needs. 

However, Doe did not participate in the program or provide the necessary authorization for his 

enrollment. As a result, Son was removed from the program, and Doe and Son were not able to 

participate in the recommended programming in Doe’s home. Son was enrolled in an alternate

out-of-home program which required additional transportation from his daycare center at least 

two days per week for physical, occupational, and speech therapy appointments. Although the 

Department informed Doe about the therapy appointments, invited her to attend, and provided 

her with a weekly gas voucher, Doe did not attend any of the appointments. Crosby expressed 

 

explicit finding of neglect is contained in the magistrate court’s subsequently issued Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree as to Mother, entered March 29, 2012.
6

her opinion that Doe did not understand Son’s needs and would not continue the necessary 

treatment if Son was returned to her care. While Doe attempts to place the blame for her failure 

to participate on the Department and the foster parents, for what she describes as their failure to 

include her in Son’s therapy progress updates, it is more appropriately attributable to her own 

lack of initiative. The evidence showed that Doe did virtually nothing to comply with this 

component of the case plan or to enable herself to understand and address Son’s developmental 

delay and special needs. There is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate’s 

findings that Doe was unwilling and unable to care for Son’s special needs.

2. Inadequate housing and employment

The magistrate concluded that Doe was unable to provide housing for herself and Son 

and that “the prospect that she will be able to do so in the future is not realistic and probably 

impossible.” The magistrate similarly concluded that Doe “cannot independently support 

herself . . . let alone provide an income sufficient to support her and her child.” Doe does not 

dispute that she was unable to provide for Son financially or that she relied on family members 

to provide her with housing. Instead, Doe asserts that in light of the support she was receiving 

from her family, the magistrate erred by considering her inability to independently provide 

housing and financial support for Son, and that absent a finding that Son was “negatively 

impacted,” her inability to provide housing and financial support is insufficient to demonstrate 

neglect. However, a decision to terminate parental rights based on a finding of neglect does not 

require the court to make a finding of actual harm. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 151 

Idaho 498, 508, 260 P.3d 1169, 1179 (2011). See also In re Cheatwood, 108 Idaho 218, 220, 

697 P.2d 1232, 1234 (Ct. App. 1985) (“The termination statutes of this state exist not merely to 

alleviate harm but to prevent it.”). Instead, when determining whether neglect exists under Idaho 

Code § 16-1602(25)(a), the focus is whether the child is without proper parental care and 

control. A parent’s inability to provide sufficient and stable income and housing is certainly 

relevant to this determination. See, e.g., Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 152 Idaho 

644, 650, 273 P.3d 685, 691 (2012); In re Doe, 149 Idaho 401, 407-08, 234 P.3d 725, 731-32 

(2010); Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 148 Idaho 832, 838, 230 P.3d 442, 448 (Ct. 

App. 2010).

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that over the previous five years, Doe had 

been dependent on others for housing, and that Doe’s living arrangements during the year 
7

preceding trial had been unstable. In April 2011, Doe was living with her sister, whom she 

allegedly battered. Next, she lived with her brother, but she moved shortly after a drive-byshooting occurred at his residence in August. After moving out of her brother’s house, she lived 

with her father for a period of time between September and November. Finally, she moved into 

her grandmother’s two-bedroom apartment, where she was living at the time of trial. There, the 

two bedrooms were occupied by Doe’s grandmother and Doe’s aunt, so Doe slept on the couch. 

Crosby testified that there was no room for Son in the apartment. Crosby indicated that, in her 

opinion, Doe had failed to obtain and maintain housing free of health and safety hazards with 

sufficient space to meet her needs and Son’s needs. Furthermore, Crosby expressed concern that 

Doe was “dependent on the kindness” of others for any housing at all, and thus, that she could be 

forced to move at any time, leaving her with no place else to go. 

Regarding Doe’s employment history, the evidence presented at trial indicated that Doe’s 

employment over the previous five years had been inconsistent. The department was unable to 

verify any employment after 2009. Prior to trial, Doe reported that she was working for her 

brother’s business, but she did not provide any verification of that employment or income. At 

trial, Doe testified that she received $125 each week in addition to lodging for care she provided 

to her grandmother. However, she again did not provide any verification of the income. 

Furthermore, even if Doe had verified an income of $125 per week, such a limited income would 

not be sufficient to support herself and Son financially. 

We conclude that there was substantial and competent evidence that the housing provided 

by Doe’s family was inadequate and unstable, that she did not have the ability to independently 

obtain stable and suitable housing, and that she was unable to provide an income sufficient to 

support either herself or Son.

3. Substance abuse and mental health issues

Next, Doe asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of neglect 

based on her substance abuse and mental health problems, and that the magistrate erred by 

considering her failure to complete treatment for these issues absent such evidence. 
8

Doe’s case plan directed her to complete a substance abuse evaluation, follow all 

recommendations, including random drug testing,6 and develop a relapse prevention plan. Doe 

participated in a substance abuse evaluation with a counselor on October 13, 2011. Based on 

Doe’s history of substance abuse, the counselor concluded that Doe met the criteria for both 

alcohol and amphetamine dependence, but indicated that both conditions were in sustained full 

remission. Nevertheless, the counselor concluded: 

[Doe] expresses willingness to enroll and participate in treatment and understands 

she has substance use disorder problems. [Doe] has extensive history of drug 

abuse . . . . [Her] ability to deal with dysfunctional family dynamics will be 

successful only with support and scheduled treatment contacts. She will need to 

review her relapse dynamics and develop strategies for ongoing sober support. 

[Doe] does not have an adequate primary social support system and has some 

inability to obtain support without treatment and case management services.

Accordingly, the counselor recommended that Doe participate in an outpatient treatment 

program to address her substance abuse issues. It is undisputed that Doe did not comply with the 

recommendations from the evaluation or complete a relapse plan. At trial, the substance abuse 

counselor testified that she had conducted five substance abuse assessments for Doe since 2000, 

and that she had observed a pattern of relapses. She then expressed her opinion that Doe could 

only be successful if she was surrounded by a positive support group and was participating in 

treatment. Crosby, the Department social worker, gave similar testimony. As summarized by 

the magistrate:

[Doe] has an extensive substance abuse problem, dating back at least 

twenty years, if not more. It appears from the testimony and exhibits that [Doe]

has a significant history of relapse and failure to maintain sobriety. 

There was no evidence presented at the termination trial that [Doe] has

completed any substance abuse treatment program during the course of this child 

protection case or that she had successfully completed treatment in the past.

Doe asserts that because she presented evidence that she had maintained sobriety after 

she was arrested in April 2011, the magistrate’s finding of neglect related to her substance abuse 

 

6 It does not appear from the record that Doe refused, or that the Department requested 

random drug tests. 
9

history was erroneous. We disagree. While Doe’s claimed period of sobriety, if true,7 is 

commendable, the evidence indicated that without dedicated participation in treatment and 

relapse prevention efforts, Doe was at a high risk to relapse into substance abuse. Doe does not 

dispute that she has a lengthy history of substance abuse treatment followed by relapses, or that 

she refused to comply with the evaluator’s recommendations that were designed to minimize the 

risk of future relapse. The trial court did not err in holding that Doe’s failure to participate in 

recommended treatment and relapse prevention programs contributed to her neglect of Son. 

In June 2011, Doe was evaluated by Dr. Bill R. Arnold, a clinical and forensic 

psychologist, who summarized Doe’s mental health conditions as follows:

[Doe] has a prior diagnosis of bipolar I disorder with intermittent compliance with 

medications, as well as a complicating factor of traumatic brain injury, both as a 

child and also likely later in adulthood when she was physically abused by 

boyfriends. In addition to the symptoms associated with bipolar disorder, she 

shows a number of symptoms typically related to individuals with traumatic brain 

injury, including egocentricity, immaturity, difficulties with information 

processing speed, difficulties with memory, and impulsivity, as well as poor

judgment 

As a result, Dr. Arnold recommended: (1) a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether Doe 

could improve her functioning with medication; (2) individual counseling by a “therapist 

experienced in both personality disorders . . . as well as traumatic brain injury” to provide 

empathy training, anger management skills, stress management skills, interpersonal problem 

solving skills, and developmentally appropriate parenting skills; and (3) monitoring “to insure 

abstinence from alcohol and other illegal substances.” Dr. Arnold concluded, “Based on her 

difficulties with parenting in the past and current difficulties with symptom management, the 

likelihood that [Doe] will improve to a level sufficient for safe parenting as her child develops 

appears poor to fair.” It is undisputed that Doe did not comply with Dr. Arnold’s 

recommendations, and Crosby testified that Doe did not adequately address her mental health 

issues. 

Based on the evidence of Doe’s mental health and substance abuse issues, the magistrate 

concluded:

 

7 The Department apparently received reports from individuals in the community that Doe 

had been drinking during the pendency of this case.
10

The evidence before this court is that [Doe’s] ability to parent her children 

is negatively affected by her unstable and untreated mental health condition and 

substance abuse issues. Because she has not addressed either of those conditions, 

she cannot be put in the role of parenting the child as she [is] at risk for 

dysfunctional parenting, and will remain so until her issues are adequately treated.

. . . .

[Doe] lacks the necessary insight to understand that her substance abuse 

and mental health issues are the core issues central to her inability to parent any of 

her children. If she does not or cannot perceive that these issues are problems, 

even after all the [Department’s] interventions and involvement that has occurred 

over the years, then quite frankly, she never will. There is no evidence before the 

court that [Doe’s] substance abuse and mental health issues have been or ever will 

be appropriately addressed sufficient to parent [Son].

The magistrate made explicit findings that Doe’s mental health and substance abuse issues 

prevented her from providing proper parental care and support, and those findings were 

supported by substantial and competent evidence.

Each of the magistrate’s findings--that Doe was unwilling or unable to provide for Son’s 

special needs, that Doe was unable to provide sufficient housing and income to support herself 

and Son, and that Doe’s mental health and substance abuse issues had not been addressed 

sufficiently to enable her to parent Son--was directly related to Doe’s inability to provide 

adequate, safe parental care and was supported by substantial and competent evidence. Thus, we 

will not disturb the magistrate’s findings that Doe’s failure to take the necessary steps to address 

each of these parenting deficiencies constituted neglect of Son. 

B. Best Interests of the Child

Finally, Doe asserts that the evidence did not support a finding that termination of Doe’s 

parental rights was in Son’s best interests. Doe argues that the magistrate erred “by weighing the 

negative impact of Mother’s mental health, substance abuse, and other issues against the bond 

that existed between Mother and [Son].” The magistrate acknowledged that Doe’s love for Son 

appeared “very sincere.” However, the magistrate also recognized that Son needs stability and 

permanency, which Doe was not able to provide. The magistrate did not commit error by 

considering factors other than Doe’s love for Son. Idaho courts have long recognized that “a 

child may not live on parental affection alone.” State ex rel. Child v. Clouse, 93 Idaho 893, 896, 

477 P.2d 834, 837 (1970); accord In re Doe 2009-19, 150 Idaho 201, 209, 245 P.3d 953, 961 

(2010); Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 627, 632, 238 P.3d 724, 729 (Ct. 

App. 2010). The magistrate considered Doe’s inability to provide adequate housing and 
11

financial support, as well as her limited ability to provide care to her son, due in part to her 

inattentiveness to Son’s special needs, and in part to her unaddressed substance abuse and mental 

health issues. The magistrate also considered testimony from Son’s guardian ad litem that Son 

had made significant progress with respect to his developmental delays since he was placed in 

foster care. Both Crosby and the guardian ad litem stated that, in their professional opinion, 

termination of Doe’s parental rights would be in Son’s best interests. 

Doe also asserts that the magistrate incorrectly placed the burden on her to prove that she 

was fit to care for Son. We disagree. The magistrate correctly placed the burden on the 

Department to prove that termination was in Son’s best interests. However, “[a]fter the 

Department made such a showing, it was . . . Doe’s burden to come forward with contradictory 

evidence.” Doe, 151 Idaho at 508, 260 P.3d at 1179. While Doe testified that she loved Son, she 

did not present evidence sufficient to rebut the Department’s showing that his best interests

would be served by terminating Doe’s parental rights so that Son could be placed permanently in 

a family where his needs for stable and safe housing, financial support, and parenting attentive to 

his special needs would be met. Considering Doe’s demonstrated inability to provide Son with 

adequate parental care and support, the progress that Son made while in foster care, and the 

recommendations of both the Department social worker and the guardian ad litem, the 

magistrate’s decision that termination of Doe’s parental rights was in Son’s best interests was 

supported by substantial and competent evidence.

III.

CONCLUSION

The magistrate’s findings that Doe neglected Son were supported by substantial and 

competent evidence, as was the magistrate’s finding that termination of Doe’s parental rights 

would be in Son’s best interests. Doe has shown no error in the magistrate’s findings and 

conclusions. Therefore, the magistrate’s order terminating Doe’s parental rights is affirmed. No 

costs or attorney fees are awarded on appeal.

Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge GUTIERREZ CONCUR.