1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 48278

In the Interest of: John Doe I, John Doe 

II, John Doe III, and Jane Doe I, Children 

Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.

)

)

)

)

STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND WELFARE,

Petitioner-Respondent,

v.

JOHN DOE and JANE DOE (2020-35),

Respondents-Appellants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: January 19, 2021

Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Calvin H. Campbell, 

Magistrate. 

Judgment of the magistrate court terminating parental rights, affirmed. 

Marilyn Paul, Twin Falls County Public Defender; Laura Z. O’Connell, Deputy 

Public Defender, Twin Falls, for appellants. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; James T. Baird, Deputy Attorney 

General, Twin Falls, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Chief Judge

John Doe and Jane Doe appeal from the magistrate court’s order terminating their 

parental rights. The Does argue the magistrate court’s findings that statutory grounds exist for 

termination of parental rights and termination is in the best interests of the children are not 

supported by substantial and competent evidence. Because the magistrate court’s findings are 

supported by substantial and competent evidence, the court’s order terminating parental rights is 

affirmed. 
2

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

John Doe is the father of L.W. and R.W. John Doe’s wife, Jane Doe, is the mother of 

K.J., T.J., and R.W. After nearly two decades of repeated contact with child protection 

authorities, on May 26, 2017, K.J., T.J., L.W., and R.W. were removed from the Does’ home and 

placed into protective custody because of unstable, unclean, and unsafe living conditions; 

concerns about physical abuse; and concerns about failure to protect R.W. from sexual abuse

from T.J. 

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (Department) filed a petition pursuant to 

the Child Protection Act (C.P.A.). The magistrate court held a shelter care hearing and found 

reasonable cause to believe the children came within the purview of the C.P.A. due to neglect 

and lack of a stable home environment, and ordered the children into temporary care and custody 

of the Department. Thereafter, the magistrate court held an adjudicatory hearing and entered an 

order finding that although reasonable efforts had been made to avoid removal, it was contrary to 

the children’s best interests to be returned to live with the Does. Neither John Doe nor Jane Doe 

appealed the order. 

The magistrate court ordered a case plan for the parties as part of reunification efforts and

the case plan was subsequently amended as the case proceeded. The magistrate court held a 

series of regular status and review hearings and at one point, the court placed K.J., L.W., and 

R.W. with the Does for an extended home visit. T.J. remained in his previous placement. K.J., 

L.W., and R.W. remained in the Does’ home under protective supervision for approximately 

eight months, but were again removed from the home when the magistrate court found it was 

contrary to their welfare to remain with the Does. Accordingly, K.J., L.W., and R.W. were 

returned to the care of the Department. 

The magistrate court continued to hold regular review hearings and annual permanency

hearings. Because John and Jane Doe failed to make progress on the case plan, the Department

moved for termination of parental rights and a termination trial was held. After the termination 

trial, the magistrate court entered an order that found statutory grounds existed to terminate John 

Doe’s parental rights to L.W. and R.W. and Jane Doe’s parental rights to K.J., T.J., and R.W.

because the Does neglected and abused their children. Additionally, the magistrate court found it 
3

is in the children’s best interest to terminate the respective parental rights of the Does.

1

 The 

magistrate court entered its final judgment terminating the parental rights of the Does. John and 

Jane Doe timely appeal.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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. I.C. § 16-2001(2). Therefore, the requisites of 

due process must be met when terminating the parent-child relationship. State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 

383, 386, 146 P.3d 649, 652 (2006). Due process requires that the grounds for terminating a 

parent-child relationship be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Because a 

fundamental liberty interest is at stake, the United States Supreme Court has determined that a 

court may terminate a parent-child relationship only if that decision is supported by clear and 

convincing evidence. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769 (1982); see also I.C. § 16-2009; In 

re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761-62, 203 P.3d 689, 691-92 (2009); Doe, 143 Idaho at 386, 146 P.3d at 

652. 

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. In re 

Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 346, 144 P.3d 597, 600 (2006). Clear and convincing evidence is generally 

 

1 The magistrate court also found statutory grounds for parental termination of the 

biological father of T.J. and K.J. and the biological mother of L.W and that terminating their 

parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Neither party appealed.
4

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 magistrate

court’s decision must be supported by objectively supportable grounds. Doe, 143 Idaho at 346, 

144 P.3d at 600.

Idaho Code § 16-2005 permits a party to petition the court for termination of the parentchild relationship when it is in the child’s best interests and any one of the following five factors 

exist: (a) abandonment; (b) neglect or abuse; (c) lack of a biological relationship between the 

child and a presumptive parent; (d) the parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities for 

a prolonged period that will be injurious to the health, morals, or well-being of the child; or 

(e) the parent is incarcerated and will remain incarcerated for a substantial period of time. Each 

statutory ground is an independent basis for termination. Doe, 144 Idaho at 842, 172 P.3d at 

1117. Upon finding a statutory ground for termination, the court must also find that it is in the 

best interests of the child to terminate the parent-child relationship. I.C. § 16-2005(1). Both 

findings must be established by clear and convincing evidence. 

III.

ANALYSIS

John and Jane Doe argue that there is not substantial and competent evidence to support 

the magistrate court’s finding that: (1) statutory grounds existed to terminate their parental rights 

because they neglected and abused their children; and (2) the termination of their parental rights 

is in the children’s best interests. In response, the State argues that the magistrate court’s 

findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence. 

A. Statutory Grounds for Termination 

Idaho Code § 16-2002(3)(a) defines “neglect” as any conduct included in I.C. § 16-

1602(31). 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 parents, 

guardian, or other custodian or their neglect or refusal to provide them. Neglect also exists 

where the parent has failed to comply with the court’s orders or the case plan in a C.P.A. case 

and the Department has had temporary or legal custody of the child for fifteen of the most recent 

twenty-two months and reunification has not been accomplished by the last day of the fifteenth 

month in which the child has been in the temporary or legal custody of the Department. I.C. 
5

§ 16-2002(3)(b). Failure to provide children with stable and safe housing may be considered in a 

neglect determination. See Matter of Doe Children, 162 Idaho 69, 77-78, 394 P.3d 112, 120-21 

(Ct. App. 2017). 

Idaho Code § 16-2002(4) defines “abused” as any conduct included in I.C. § 16-1602(1).

Idaho Code § 16-1602(1) provides, in pertinent part, that a child is abused in any case where the 

child has been a victim of conduct resulting in skin bruising, bleeding, fracture of any bone, or 

soft tissue swelling.

Here, the magistrate court found that clear and convincing evidence showed that John

Doe neglected L.W. and R.W. and Jane Doe neglected K.J., T.J., and R.W. by failing to 

complete the case plan, including failing to engage in treatment in any meaningful way, and 

failing to maintain adequate, stable, safe, or sanitary housing for the children. Further, the 

magistrate court found clear and convincing evidence that John and Jane Doe were physically 

abusive to the children and failed to protect the children from abuse from others. These findings 

are supported by substantial and competent evidence. 

1. Statutory grounds exist for termination of John Doe’s parental rights to

L.W. and R.W. 

The magistrate court’s finding that statutory grounds exist to terminate John Doe’s 

parental rights because John Doe neglected and abused L.W. and R.W. is supported by 

substantial and competent evidence. 

a. Substantial and competent evidence supports finding of neglect 

First, the magistrate court’s finding that John Doe neglected L.W. and R.W. by failing to 

complete the case plan is supported by substantial and competent evidence. L.W. and R.W. had 

been in the care of the Department for approximately thirty of the thirty-nine months prior to the 

termination trial. Both Nicholas Wolfley, a social worker with the Department, and Dan Roper, 

the child welfare supervisor at the Department, testified that despite the Department putting in 

place multiple case plans throughout the three years prior to the termination trial, John Doe never 

completed a case plan. Specifically, Wolfley testified that despite the requirements of the case 

plan, John Doe failed to demonstrate adequate coping strategies for his anger, participate in a 

manner that was physically and emotionally safe during family counseling sessions, behave 

productively during scheduled and unscheduled home visits, provide the Department with 

documentation about relevant medical restrictions, communicate respectfully and professionally 
6

with the Department and related organizations, and provide safe, stable, and sanitary housing 

while Wolfley was assigned to the case. 

Not only did John Doe fail to complete the case plan, the evidence suggested he engaged 

in actions that made it very difficult for the Department and other organizations to fulfill their 

obligations to assist him pursuant to the case plan. Roper testified that John Doe would actively 

obstruct the Department’s efforts, forcing the Department to seek relief from the magistrate court 

through the addition of specific language in the case plan. Roper described that during 

conversations, John Doe was “at odds” with him about everything. During one home visit, Doe 

was so aggressive that Roper left because he believed it was not safe for him to remain in the 

Does’ home. Tahna Barton, the executive director of Court Appointed Special Advocates for the 

Fifth Judicial District, testified to similar behavior; she worked with John and Jane Doe until it 

became clear that she would not be able to continue her efforts safely because of John Doe’s 

aggression. Consequently, Barton continued tracking progress on the case plan without personal 

contact with the parents. Melissa Uhl, a licensed professional counselor at Crosspointe Family 

Services, told the magistrate court that John Doe left her threatening voicemails and he was so 

aggressive during an in-person meeting that she refused to work with the Does from that point 

forward. John Doe testified that he lost his temper with at least three individuals who had been 

assigned to the case. Because of John Doe’s aggressive and volatile behavior, he was unable to 

complete any of the treatment programs as required by the case plan.

Second, the magistrate court’s finding that John Doe neglected L.W. and R.W. by failing 

to provide adequately stable, safe, and sanitary housing is supported by clear and convincing

evidence. P.J., John Doe’s older son who is not a party to the termination proceedings because 

he is beyond the age of minority, testified that he never felt safe in the household, relatives and 

friends of John and Jane Doe physically punished the children which left marks upon their 

bodies, and neither John nor Jane Doe intervened to stop the abuse. Shannon Wilson, a social 

worker assigned to the case, testified that L.W. disclosed that he witnessed violence in the home. 

Additionally, multiple witnesses testified that R.W. disclosed that T.J., her half-brother, sexually 

abused her and that John and Jane Doe were aware of R.W.’s disclosures. Despite the Does’

awareness of the alleged sexual abuse, Monte Henderson, a social worker from the Department, 

testified that, after speaking to the children, he was concerned that John and Jane Doe were not 

following the safety plan put in place to keep R.W. safe from future sexual abuse. Even R.W. 
7

did not feel safe; Barton testified that R.W. disclosed to her that she wanted to ask her parents 

“why they didn’t protect her.”

Finally, multiple witnesses, including John and Jane Doe’s witness and family friend, 

testified to the presence of bugs or insects in the home. Stacy Stephens, a licensed clinical social 

worker and owner of Alliance Family Services, testified that she worked with both John and Jane 

Doe in multiple homes over the pendency of the proceedings, and the homes were very dirty, 

with cockroach and bed bug issues that persisted despite multiple organizing and eradication 

efforts from Alliance Family Services. Barton testified that when the children came into care, it 

was difficult to find a part of their bodies that was not covered in bed bug bites, and this occurred 

again when the children returned from protective supervision. Barton recounted that R.W.

disclosed that the bugs would cover her bed at night in the Does’ home, forcing her to sleep with 

the lights on. While John Doe disputed that the children were “totally covered” in bug bites, he 

admitted to the presence of bug bites on their bodies. Roper stated that although the condition of 

the Does’ homes has been a rollercoaster, ultimately, there has been no improvement in either 

the cleanliness of or bug eradication in the home during the pendency of the case. Thus, the 

magistrate court’s finding that John Doe neglected his children by failing to complete the case 

plan, including engaging in treatment, and failing to provide adequately stable, safe, and sanitary 

housing is supported by substantial and competent evidence. 

b. Substantial and competent evidence supports finding of abuse 

The magistrate court’s finding that John Doe abused his children is supported by 

substantial and competent evidence. P.J. testified that John Doe physically abused him, 

including choking him, and that he had seen bruises on L.W. from being hit. Photographs 

entered as exhibits during the termination trial corroborated P.J.’s testimony, showing bruising 

on P.J.’s chest, shoulder blade, and behind his ear. P.J. recounted that John and Jane Doe made

the children engage in excessive physical activity and required the children to sleep in a tent as 

punishment, at times for weeks, even when it was too hot or too cold outside. 

Stephens testified that P.J. disclosed during counseling that he was very fearful that T.J., 

John Doe’s stepson, was going to be killed by the accelerating abuse in the Does’ home. T.J. 

showed Stephens bruising on his back and told her that John Doe caused the injuries. Uhl stated 

that K.J., John Doe’s other stepson, disclosed that both John and Jane Doe had abused him, 

including by spanking him with a 2x4 piece of wood as punishment, and that John Doe 
8

threatened to hurt Jane Doe if K.J. ever disclosed the abuse. Shannon Wilson, a social worker 

assigned to the case, testified that she met with K.J., T.J., L.W., and R.W., and the children 

disclosed violence in the home, both being hit and witnessing the male children being hit. 

Wilson recalled that R.W. expressed multiple concerns about abuse at home, including spanking, 

yelling, and being placed in the dog kennel. Multiple witnesses testified that the children 

exhibited fear of John and Jane Doe during interactions with the parents and often attributed this 

fear to the Does’ discipline in the home. Further, John Doe admitted to using corporal 

punishment and forcing physical exercises as discipline and that P.J., T.J., and L.W. are guarded 

around him because of his “rigid” behavior. The magistrate court’s finding that John Doe abused 

his children is supported by substantial and competent evidence. 

2. Statutory grounds exist for termination of Jane Doe’s parental rights to K.J., 

T.J., and R.W. 

The magistrate court’s finding that statutory grounds exist to terminate Jane Doe’s 

parental rights because Jane Doe neglected and abused K.J., T.J., and R.W. is supported by 

substantial and competent evidence. 

a. Substantial and competent evidence supports finding of neglect 

The magistrate court’s determination that Jane Doe neglected her children is supported by 

substantial and competent evidence. While R.W. had been in the Department’s care for 

approximately thirty of the thirty-nine months prior to the termination trial, both K.J. and T.J. 

had been in the Department’s care for the entirety of the thirty-nine months. First, the testimony 

presented during the termination trial was that Jane Doe did not complete a case plan during this 

time period. Specifically, Wolfley testified that despite the case plan’s requirements, Jane Doe 

failed to attend regular counseling, engage in self-care activities to improve her mental health, 

provide the Department with information pertaining to her medication management, demonstrate 

support as recommended for John Doe’s mental health treatment and de-escalation, secure stable 

housing, or alleviate the Department’s concerns with her parenting. As with John Doe, Roper 

told the magistrate court that Jane Doe would actively obstruct the Department’s efforts under 

the case plan, including by refusing to sign releases. 

Second, as discussed above, the physical violence used by the Does’ family and friends

upon the children and Jane Doe’s failure to protect R.W. from sexual abuse, established the 

instability of Jane Doe’s home, while the unclean, bug-ridden status of the home provided clear 

and convincing evidence that her home was not safe or sanitary for the children. Consequently, 
9

the testimony supported the magistrate court’s finding that Jane Doe did not provide an 

adequately stable, safe, and sanitary home for her children. Thus, the magistrate court’s finding 

of neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence. 

b. Substantial and competent evidence supports finding of abuse 

The magistrate court’s determination that Jane Doe abused her children is supported by 

substantial and competent evidence. In addition to the evidence discussed earlier, multiple 

witnesses testified to specific acts of physical abuse by Jane Doe; including forcing physical 

activities, like push-ups, as punishment; hitting T.J.; using a belt, paddle, and a 2x4 on the 

children; and tackling, hitting, and holding L.W. to the floor. Accordingly, substantial and 

competent evidence supports the magistrate court’s finding that Jane Doe abused her children.

B. Best Interests of the Children

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). 

1. Substantial and competent evidence supports magistrate court’s finding that 

terminating John Doe’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children

The magistrate court’s finding that terminating John Doe’s parental rights to L.W. and 

R.W. is in the best interests of the children is supported by substantial and competent evidence. 

At the time of the termination trial, the Department had previously received more than thirty 

child welfare referrals for John Doe, spanning approximately nineteen years. Barton testified 

that in her experience, the Does’ case represents the longest history and most referrals for a case 

before the children come into care. Multiple witnesses testified that during the nearly two 

decades of contact with state welfare systems, John Doe made no meaningful improvements to 

the circumstances that gave rise to the referrals and ultimately brought his children into care in 
10

this case. For example, Roper testified that the Does received significantly more support from 

and contact with the Department than the average family, but despite the time and resources, 

Roper had not seen any permanent, meaningful change. Roper believed there was nothing more 

the Department could have done to assist the Does because it seemed as if the Does did not want 

to be helped. Barton expressed that she had not seen any improvements in John Doe’s anger 

issues. And, after working with the Does for five years, Stephens told the magistrate court that 

she never saw lasting changes; the Does continued to believe that their aggressive parenting style 

was best, even when shown alternatives. 

Additionally, the children had not seen meaningful changes in their parents’ behavior. 

Wilson testified that the children are reluctant to participate in family therapy because, despite 

multiple attempts, they have never seen improvement. Barton stated that she received phone 

calls from the children requesting to be excused from family visits because they no longer saw a 

benefit to the visitation.

Witnesses presented evidence that additional time to work towards reunification would 

be detrimental, particularly because it would force the children to remain in an unstable situation. 

During the six months prior to the termination trial, Barton believed the Does were regressing in 

their ability to care for the children, stating the Does have “gone backwards more than they have 

gone forwards,” including not obtaining or maintaining employment and losing their home. 

The evidence presented at the termination trial also showed a lack of parental bond 

between the Does and the children. Roper, Weaver, and Christine Sabey, the visitation 

supervisors, testified to the strained nature or complete lack of a parental bond between the 

children and the Does. Sabey testified that the children only attended visitation with their 

parents because they were required to, were miserable during the visits, and were relieved when 

they were over. Additionally, Sabey recalled that R.W. cried because she did not want to attend 

a visitation with the Does and that both John and Jane Doe ignored R.W. during visitation, 

choosing to engage with the other children instead. Wilson expressed that her major concern 

was a lack of secure attachment between the Does and their children and stated that she believed 

it would take a minimum of two to six years of therapy, with full commitment from all parties, to 

repair the children’s bond to the parents. Multiple witnesses testified that the children seemed

afraid of their parents, particularly John Doe, and the children took constant precautions in their 

conversations with John and Jane Doe to avoid the punishment and discipline that the children 
11

felt may occur if they said the wrong thing. Finally, Uhl expressed her belief that the Does are 

pursuing reunification because they want to “win,” not out of care for their children. 

While in the Department’s care, witnesses noticed improvements in L.W.’s and R.W.’s 

behavior and emotional capacities, and testified that these improvements waned during contact 

with John and Jane Doe. Roper testified that after removal, all of the children began to find their 

voice and express their desires; strengths that they did not previously possess because of 

internalized fear of repercussions. Wolfley expressed that he noted improvement in R.W.’s 

ability to regulate her emotions after coming into the Department’s care. Melissa Weaver, the

foster mother to K.J., L.W., and R.W., testified that while R.W. periodically showed defiant 

behavior while in her home, these outbursts were correlated to her visitations with the Does. 

Weaver stated that it would often take a day and a half for R.W. to be able to regulate her 

emotions after visitation with her parents. Weaver saw similarly increased defiant behavior 

when R.W. returned to foster care after the eight-month period of protective supervision in the 

Does’ home. Likewise, Weaver, testified to noticeable changes in L.W.’s behavior when he 

returned from the protective supervision placement with the Does. Weaver stated that L.W. was 

an outgoing, good student when he first came into her care, but when he returned to the foster 

home after the period of protective supervision, he was withdrawn and scared and began to do 

poorly in school. Barton’s testimony corroborated Weaver’s account; after living with the Does 

during the period of protective supervision, Barton stated that L.W. lost his love for reading and 

began to show poor academic performance. 

Many witnesses spoke to future safety concerns for the children if they were to be 

reunified with John and Jane Doe. P.J. testified that it was so difficult to live in the Does’ home 

that he attempted suicide and he does not believe it would be safe for his siblings to live with the 

Does. Similarly, Barton testified that he does not believe it is safe for the children to return 

home and that the children have expressed fear of returning to the household.

Ultimately, Uhl, Wolfley, Barton, and Roper testified that the children need stability, 

trust, love, respect, structure, safe discipline, and permanency; all attributes missing from the 

Does’ household. The magistrate court heard testimony that John and Jane Doe recently lost the 

home they were renting and are currently living in a motel that was not adequate for the children. 

Roper stated that R.W. expressed that she does not want to return home because she is worried 

about John Doe’s temper. Barton told the magistrate court that L.W. expressed a similar desire 
12

to remain in foster care because he has not seen a change in the Does. The evidence suggested 

all of the children expressed a desire to have finality in the case proceedings and ultimately, 

every worker who was asked believed that termination of the Does’ parental rights is in the best 

interests of the children. 

The termination trial included evidence of John Doe’s failure to make meaningful 

changes over nearly two decades of intervention and that his neglect of the children significantly 

impacted the bond between him and his children. Further, the record indicates that L.W. and 

R.W. performed better when outside of John Doe’s care and regressed upon contact with him. 

Finally, the evidence demonstrates justifiable concern about the safety of the children if returned 

to John Doe’s care. Accordingly, substantial and competent evidence supports the magistrate 

court’s finding that termination of John Doe’s parental rights to L.W. and R.W. is in the best 

interests of the children. 

2. Substantial and competent evidence supports magistrate court’s finding that 

terminating Jane Doe’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children 

Similarly, substantial and competent evidence supports the magistrate court’s finding that 

termination of Jane Doe’s parental rights to K.J., T.J., and R.W. is in the best interests of the 

children. Jane Doe has a long history of child welfare intervention with over forty child welfare 

referrals and, as discussed above, witnesses testified that they did not recognize any significant, 

meaningful changes to Jane Doe’s behavior despite being provided with a significant amount of 

resources. Although one witness testified that a bond existed between the children and Jane Doe, 

multiple other witnesses testified that the relationship was strained, nonexistent, or would need 

many years of therapy to recover. Further, Sabey testified that the children were frightened of 

Jane Doe, and Weaver testified that Jane Doe often appeared distracted by her phone during the 

children’s appointments. 

In addition to the improvements R.W. showed when removed from the Does’ household, 

the evidence presented at the termination trial indicates that K.J. and T.J. showed similar 

developmental progress when under the Department’s care. Through Wolfley, Weaver, and 

Barton’s testimony, evidence was presented that while in the Department’s care, K.J. became 

more open, social, comfortable with expressing himself, excited about his future, and less afraid 

of consequences, although he fears retaliation if returned to live with the Does. Uhl raised 

concern of the potential for K.J. to consider suicide if he does not continue to have access to 
13

therapy. Barton added that T.J. has “flourished” and made a “complete turnaround” since being 

removed from the Does’ household. 

As previously discussed, multiple witnesses testified to the significant need for the 

children to have safety, stability, and structure and that it is in the best interests of the children to 

terminate the Does’ parental rights. Like for John Doe, the termination trial included evidence of 

Jane Doe’s long history of child welfare referrals and her failure to make meaningful changes 

over the course of a substantial period of intervention. Further, the record indicates that Jane 

Doe’s neglect and abuse significantly impacted the bond between herself and her children. 

Finally, the testimony at the termination trial demonstrated that K.J., T.J., and R.W. performed 

better when outside of Jane Doe’s care and that safety concerns raise obstacles to returning the 

children to the Does’ home. Accordingly, substantial and competent evidence supports the 

magistrate court’s finding that termination of Jane Doe’s parental rights to K.J., T.J., and R.W. is 

in the best interests of the children. 

IV.

CONCLUSION

Substantial and competent evidence supports the magistrate court’s finding that John and 

Jane Doe neglected and abused their children and that the termination of their parental rights is in 

the best interests of the children. Accordingly, the magistrate court’s order terminating parental 

rights is affirmed. 

Judge LORELLO and Judge BRAILSFORD CONCUR.