1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 42291 IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF JANE DOE (2014
- 17).

-------------------------------------------------------- IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE,
Petitione r - Respondent,

v. JANE DOE (2014
- 17), Respondent
- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Boise, October 2014 Term 2014 Opinion No. 133
Filed: December 15, 2014 Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Ralph L. Savage, Magistrate Judge

. Magistrate court decision terminating parental rights, affirmed. Crane Law, Idaho Falls, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, for respondent.

_________________________________ BURDICK, Chief Justice

Jane Doe (“Mother”) appeals the Bonneville Count y magistrate court’s judgment that terminate d her parental rights to three of her children. The magistrate court concluded that the Idaho Department of Health an d W elfare (“IDHW”) proved by clear and convincing ev idence that Mother and John Doe (“Father”) neglect ed their children and that terminating parental rights was i n the children’s best interest s
. Mother argues IDHW did not show clear and convincing evidence , the court failed to properly consider her disability , and IDHW did not make reasonable efforts to help her comply with her case plan

. We affirm the magistrate court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parent al rights

.2 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND M other and Father are married and have three biological children together . Their older daughter, B.M

. , was born in 2002 . Their younger daughter, A.M. , was born in 2004. Their son, S.M

. , was born in 2007. This case began as a child prot ection case in 2010, w as vacated in January 2011, was reopened in 2012 , and resulted in a judgment terminating parental rights in 2014. The magistrate court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights is the subject of this appeal. In 2009, family members started to notice Mother and Father struggling

. Father had lost his job with a law firm and had stopped attendin g school board meetings at his children’s school, where he was chairman of the board of education

. The children’s grandparents grew concerned because of Mother and Fath er’s alcoholism, the home’s condition, and Mother and Father’s care for the children. IDHW first opened an informal case in 2009, after IDHW received several referrals from Mother and Father’s family members. Aro und that same time, teachers noticed that B .M. and A.M. missed ma ny days of school. When B.M. and A.M. were at school, they had dirty uniforms , unkempt hair , and needed breakfast beca use they had not eaten at home. In November 2009, s everal teachers and the principal from the children’s school went to Mother and Father’s house to offer assistance and found the home clutter ed and dirty. S.M. had no diaper or clothes on. Consequently, a teacher voluntarily took S.M. for several weeks. B.M. and A.M. went to live with their paternal grandmother next doo r. When S.M. returned home several weeks later, the home’s condition had not improved. That same month, an officer serving an arrest warrant on Mother noticed problems with the home’s condition , including that the home was cluttered and smelled like urine. The of

ficer instructed Mother and Father to make changes within 48 hours. The officer found only slight changes two days later. On February 25, 2010 , a case worker and an officer went to Mother and Father’s home

. The officer found S.M. in the house unsup ervised . B.M. and A.M. were still living with their grandmother next door at the time. The officer found problematic conditions inside the home and cited Father for misdemeanor injury to a child. The officer declared S.M. in imminent danger and placed S.M. into shelter care. Mother was incarcerated at the time, so she was not at the house. T he Bonneville County prosecutor filed a petition under the Child Protective Act (CPA) to place all three children in shelter care. The next day, the magistrate court or dered the children removed from the home pending a shelter care hearing

. The court held a shelter care hearing on3 March 1, 2010 , but Mother and Father did not attend. At the hearing , the court placed the children in IDHW’s care pending an adjudicatory hear ing. The court determined there was reasonable cause to believe the children cam e within the CPA due to neglect. The court also determined that IDHW made reasonable efforts to prevent the need for placement and it was in the children’s best interests to gi ve temporary legal custody to IDHW

. The court later appointed

a guardian ad litem ( GAL )

. The court held an adjudicatory hearing on April 7, 2010. During that hearing, Mother and Father stipulated to give custody to IDHW. The court found IDHW had made reas onable efforts prior to placing the children in foster care and that it was in the children’s best interest s to vest legal custody in I D HW. The court later approved IDHW’s c ase plan for Mother and Father. As part of the plan, the At Risk Family Interventio n Program trained Mother and Father on parenting skills and basic house cleaning skills . Mother and Father completed this training. In July 2010, a fter the children were in foster care for five months, the court allowed an extended home visit. In September 2010 , the family moved to a rental house because their mortgage had been foreclosed. The family prepaid the ir rent with Mother’s disability income. Th e children’s extended home visit continued until a January 2011 review hearing, when the GAL and case

man ager recommended vacating the case because the parents had complied with the case plan

. This was despite reports that the home ’s cleanliness was still an issue

. Mother and Father did not attend that hearing. T he court vacated the case on February 4, 2011. In July 2011 , Mother and Father were cited for misdemeanor injury to a child because a police officer observed that their house was in an unsanitary condition . At the time, the officer observed that Mother and Father had been drinking alcohol. Mother and Father had been on a drinking binge for several weeks. In January 2012, Father was incarcerated because of a domestic violence incident that involved Mother . Both Mother and Father were intoxicated at their home during that incident, and Mother had locked herself in a bathroom and sent B.M. a text message to call police. A resulting no
- contact order prohibited Father from contacting Mother

. The court put Father on pre
- trial release , but revoked that release because Father missed required appointments and d id not complete his urinalysis

. The court then issued a warrant , and o fficers went to Mother and Father’s house to look for Father . Mother claimed he was not in the house. The officers found Father in the house and4 arrested both parents: Father for violat ing the no

- contact order and Mother for obstructing an office r. The officers contacted IDHW because the only adult left at t he home after Mother and Father’s arrest was M other’s ex

- mother

- in

- law, who was an alcoholic. IDHW re

- opened the case and appointed a GAL. The first adjudicatory hearing was continued because Mother and Father did not attend and did not have sufficient notice . At the next adjudicatory hearing, Mother and Father stipulated that the court had jurisdiction because of an unstable home env ironment , but objected to giving IDHW custody. The court allowed the children to stay at home subject to IDHW’s protective custody. The court also ordered Mother and Father to sign medical r eleases for the children to update IDHW on the children’s progress
. In April 2012, S.M.’s doctor complained to IDHW that S.M. was failing to thrive because he had regressed to diapers, had not received his prescribed medications, and was not increasing in weight. Mother and Father attended that visit , but the nurse found Mother would not give straight answers about S.M.’s care. On May 21, 2012, the court held a case plan hearing . The court ordered Mother and Father to participate in a group decision

- making meeting, submit to drug tests, comply with the court’s orders, an d allow IDHW home access. The court told Mother and Father that it c ould remove the children if Mother and Father failed to comply. Mother and Father submitted to hair follicle drug testing that day and both tested positive for methamphetamine. The results indicated “high, daily, constant use” for both parents

. IDHW visited the home and found it cluttered, dirty, and unsanitary. The inspection revealed many problems, including large laundry piles, items resting against a wood stove, and a cup of mold on B.M .’s bedside table. IDHW gave Mother and Father 48 hours to clean their home, and Mother and Father failed to properly clean their home within that time

. On May 24, 2012 , the court placed all three children in foster care

. The court did this because Mother and Father had tested positive for methamphetamine , refused to sign medical releases, had not cooperated with IDHW, and appeared ready to move to California. All three children were initially placed with their paternal grandmother, but S.M. was moved to a separate foster home a few weeks later. S.M.’s physical health immediately improved in foster care. A redisposition hearing was held on May 29, 2012. The court decided to keep the children in IDHW’s custody until a June 21, 2012 hearing. The court approv ed a case plan on June 25, 2012. The case plan included requir e ments that Mother and Father : participate in5 substance abuse programs ; sign releases allow ing the case manager to assess Mot her and Father’s progress in treatment ; submit to random drug testing ; keep all mental health appointments ; follow probation ; participate in visitation ; attend their children’s medical appointment s; and maintain a stable home. The court held more review hearings and continued to find it was in the children’s bes t interest s to stay in IDHW’s custody. At an August 2012 review hearing, the court found Father had not worked with the case plan and Mother had only made some recent progress on the plan

. Father did not attend this hearing. Mother and Father then both failed to atte nd a November 2012 review hearing. Father also did not attend a January 2013 review hearing . At the hearing the
court noted that Father did not comply with his case plan and that Mother had “somewhat complied,” but by residing with Father had showed she wa s unwilling to establish a safe residence . Mother and Father attended a March 2013 review hearing, where the court again found they were not making progress on the case plan and it was in the children’s best interest s to remain in IDHW’s care

. Mother and Father then had almost no contact with the GAL or IDHW for two months

. They attended only one visit with the children between March 18 and May 13

. Mother was arrested in April for petit theft after she stole from Walmart. Mother was also hospitalized for

s ubstance abuse in April

. Around the same time , Mother and Father were evicted from their home and did not attend drug testing. The court held a perman en cy hearing on May 13, 2013. Mother and Father failed to attend the hearing. The court ultimately approv ed a perman en cy plan to terminate parental rights and ordered IDHW to file a termination petition. The court also suspended visitation because the parents had not complied with the court orders or their case plan and had missed two months of visitation and counseling. The court then suspended reunification efforts at a May 29, 2013 hearing. Neith er parent attended that hearing. IDHW filed petition s to terminate Mother and Father’s parental rights and later amended those petitions . The amended petitions and summons were personally served on Mother and Father on June 1, 2013.6 On July 22, 2013, the c ourt held a termination hearing. Mother and Father failed to attend. 1 Mother’s attorney att ended, but told the court he had not heard from Mother since March. Beca use both parents failed to attend, IDHW put on their prima facie case . T he court then found that due to neglect and an unstable home, it was in the children’s best interests to terminate Mother and Father’s rights. The court entered a default termination d ecree. Mother and Father arrived in court two hours after the hearing was over, claiming car trouble. The y filed a motion to set aside the judgment on August 5, 2013 . T he court granted that motion on November 1, 2013 , due to excusable neglect and the inte rest of justice

. 2 The court held a review hearing three days later, which Mother and Father did not attend. At the review hearing , the court approved the permanency goal of adoption by a relative. On December 9, 2013 , the court allowed the children to be p laced with Father’s half

- sister (“Aunt”) who lives in Bozeman, Montana. Aunt is a professor at Montana State University . S he and her partner (“Uncle”) have one son who is close in age to B.M. The trial was scheduled for three days in February 2014 , but ac tually took ten days. The trial included over thirty witnesses. Father represented himself and attended every day. Mother was represented by counsel and did not attend one day because she was sick

. At trial, Mother testified about her numerous health probl ems. She reported having a small stroke that continues to affect her memory. She testified that she suffers from bi

- polar disorder, although her treating doctor testified that it was instead major depressive disorder. Mother also testified that she receive s disability income due to these problems and others, including irritable bowel syndrome, post

- traumatic stress syndrome, and migraines

. S he stated that her stroke and mental health did not affect her ability to clean the house, but did interfere with her memory
. Many witnesses testified about Mother and Father’s abuse of drugs and alcohol

. Mother and Father both completed substance abuse counseling in 2010. Both Mother and Father were admitted to the hospital for detoxification on May 17, 2013. Mother and Father tested positive for meth amphetamine in 2012. B.M. knew about Mother and Father’s methamphetamine use. Mother and Father admitted that they used meth amphetamine during 2011 and 2012, but denied that they were still using. Father testified that h e ha s an anxiety disorder that contribu tes to his

1 On May 31, 2013 , Father’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw. On June 24, 2013 , the court granted that motion and ordered the attorney to send Father a copy of that order. Father was to indicate how he wanted to pro ceed. The court received nothing from Father, so it entered a default judgment against him with a decree terminating his rights. 2 Mother and Father appealed the trial court’s July 22, 2013 decision to this Court . The appeal was dismissed because the tria l court granted the motion to set aside.7 alcohol abuse when his anxiety is uncontrolled. He testified that he is now on medication for anxiety and is not drinking alcohol. Mother’s probation officer reported that she tested negative three times for dr ugs after her 2013 theft charge. Mother and Father also consistently attended counseling and treatment with A to Z counseling since January of 2014 , but that counseling did not include substance abuse treatment. Mother and Father did not provide the court with any recent tests to prove their sobriety. Many witnesses testified about the cluttered and dirty condition of the home from 2009 to 2013 . These witnesses included police officers, IDHW employees, and school employees

. Witnesses report ed dirt y clothes in heaps on the floor , rotting food , unwashed dishes , dog feces on the floor, and sharp objects within S.M. ’s reach. A landlady testified that when Mother and Father moved out , the carpet was ruined, moldy food was in the kitchen, and there were dog feces and liquor bottles in the bedrooms. Father and Mother testified that they were hoarders and had collected a lot of stuff, but now had a clean home. Other testimony focused on other troubles. B oth parents had been incarcerated during the child protection case
. Mother was arrested for driving without pri vileges, obstructing an officer , and failure to appear. Father was incarcerated for vio lating his work release and probation. He remained in jail for several months during 2012. B oth parents were unemployed

. Mother did not

wor k because she was on disability. Father’s unemployment began in 2011 and continued through the trial

. The family was evicted from at least three residences since 2009. Both parents also testified that they had extended episodes of alcoho l abuse. During that time, they would be unable to care for the children or maintain a clean and sanitary home. When both parents use d meth amphetamine , they would lock themselves in their bedroom for days at a time

. Numerous witnesses, including the IDHW case manager, foster parents, and Mother and Father’s family , all testified about how Mother and Father failed to attend planned visits and were late to visits . At one point , IDHW required Mother and Father to call and confirm visits several hours before s o the children would not be disappointed. Mothe r and Father also missed parent

- teacher conferences. The children’s foster parents, IDHW employees, CASA volunteers, an d family all testified about the children ’s health . The children remained in IDHW’s custo dy in several foster homes since May 24, 2012. The court found that while initial ly the child ren were traumatized by foster care placement , all showed improvement in their physical health since then

. Testimony8 indicated S.M. did well at his foster home . B. M. and A.M.’s mental, emotional, and physical health also improved at their foster home , and they were able to visit S.M. on weekends. The children moved to another home in fall of 201 3 , and that placement did not go as well as the others

. But things did g o well when the children were placed with Aunt in December 2013 . A ll three children wanted Aunt to adopt them and were sad about their parents’ choices . All testifying extended family members confirmed that living with Aunt was in the children’s best inter ests. No family members , other than Mother and Father, indicated that termination was not in the children’s best interests. Both parties submitted closing briefs to the court. While IDHW ’s petition sought to terminate Mother and Father’s rights on variou s grounds, IDHW’s closing brief primarily sought termination based on neglect. The trial court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on June 11, 2014. The court found , by clear and convincing evidence , that M other and F ather had neglected the children and that terminating their parental rights was in the children’s best interest s
. Mother timely appealed. II. ISSUES ON APPEAL 1. Whether the trial court erred by finding clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother ’s parental rights.
2. Whether t he trial court considered Mother’s alleged disabilities and IDHW’s support services

. I II . STANDARD OF REVIEW The IDHW must show grounds for termination of parental rights “ by clear and convincing evidence because each parent has a fundamental liberty inter est in maintaining a relationship with his or her child. ” I daho Dep’t Health & Welfare v. D oe , 150 Idaho 36, 41, 244 P.3d 180, 185 (2010). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that indicates the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably cert ain. Id. On appeal, we “ will not disturb the magistrate court’s decision to terminate parental rights if there is substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the decision. ” Id. Substantial, competent evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. I V
. ANALYSIS Here, the magistrate court terminated Mother and Father’s parental rights because it found neglect and that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate those rights. Father did9 n ot appeal. Therefore, we will focus on Mother ’s relationship with her three children. See In Interest of Cheatwood , 108 Idaho 218, 219, 697 P.2d 1232, 1233 (Ct. App. 1985)

. A. The trial court did not err when it terminate d Mother ’s parental rights because substantial and competent evidence supports that decision
. Statutory grounds for termination of parental rights include: (a) abandonment; (b) neglect or abuse; (c) lack of a biological relationship between the child and a presumptive parent; (d) inability to discharge parental responsibilities for a prolonged period, which will injure the child’s health, mo rals, or well

- being ; or (e) a parent’s incarceration for a substantial period of time during the child’ s minority. I.C. § 16

– 2005. T o terminate parental rights, t he trial court must find at least one of these ground s for termination and then also find that it is in the children’s best interests to terminate the parent

- child relationship. I.C. § 16

– 2005(1). Here, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence of neglect and that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate parental rights. Mother argues the trial court erred in doing

so
. 1. S ubstantial and competent evidence supports the trial court’s finding of neglect

. Mother argues that becaus e of her disabilities, the trial court could not have found she willfully failed to comply with the case plan or willfully neglected her children. However, willful neglect and willful non

- compliance with the case plan is not the standard. Neglect is a stat utory ground for terminating parental rights under Idaho Code section 16

- 2005. “ Neglected ” is defined in Idaho Code section 16

- 2002(3) as (a) Conduct as defined in section 16

- 1602(28), Idaho Code; or (b) The parent(s) has failed to comply with the court’ s orders or the case plan in a child protective act case and: (i) The department has had temporary or legal custody of the child for fifteen (15) of the most recent twenty

- two (22) months; and (ii) 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. Idaho Code section 16

- 1602 (28) defines neglected as a child (a) Who is without proper parental care and control, or subsistence, medical or other care or c ontrol necessary for his well

- being because of the conduct or omission of his parents, guardian or other custodian or their neglect or refusal to provide them;

. . . or10 (b) Whose parents, guardian or other custodian are unable to discharge their responsibi lities to and for the child and, as a result of such inability, the child lacks the parental care necessary for his health, safety or well

- being; or (c) Who has been placed for care or adoption in violation of law; or (d) Who is without proper education be cause of the failure to comply with section 33

- 202, Idaho Code. Idaho Code section 16

- 2005 allows the court to terminate parental rights upon a showing of an y of the enumerated conditions. In Interest of Dayley , 112 Idaho 522, 526, 733 P.2d 743, 747 (1987)

. “ Whether neglect has occurred is a question of fact to be established by clear and convincing evidence. ” In re Doe , 156 Idaho 103, ___, 320 P.3d 1262, 1269 (2014). Mother argues that IDHW did not present clear and convincing evidence that terminating Mo ther’s parental rights was appropriate under Idaho Code section 16

- 2005. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence under both aspects of the “neglected” defini tion in Idaho Code section 16

- 20 02 (3)

. The court found Mother and Father displayed negl ect when they: (1) were under the influence of drugs and alcohol in their bedroom while their children were unsupervised ; (2) failed to attend visitation; (3) allowed S.M.’s health to grow poor in their custody; (4) did not meet the children’s needs for fo od; and (5) failed to properly supervise and care for the children. The co urt elaborated that the parents failed to maintain a normal relations hip with the children, may lack the ability to change their conduct to assume parental responsibilities, lacked s table housing and employment, and used alcohol or drugs. This is neglectful behavior that showed Mother and Father failed to provide their children with proper parental care and control under section 16

- 2002 (3) (a), as set forth in 16

- 1602(28). The court al so found behavior that is clear and convincing evidence of neglect as defined in 16

- 2002 (3) ( b) . The court found the parents completely failed to comply with the case plan during the first fifteen months of the 2012 case , IDHW had temporary custody of the c hildren for the required time period , and reunification was not accomplished in the required time period . The court noted that both Mother and Father did not attend some visitations, did not provide releases to IDHW , did not submit to drug testing, did not remain drug free, and did not participate in counseling. These tasks were all part of their case plan. The court found that both parents had attempted to comply with the counseling portion of the case plan for several months before trial and testified the y were sober at the time of the trial. However, the case plan provided that they prove sobriety through testing, which they did not do. The court found that despite any recent11 efforts, Mother and Father failed to comply with the majority of the case plan, “especially during the most important phase of a child protection case.” Mother attacks the trial court’s neglect finding with specif ic arguments on certain areas of the trial court’s decision , but never argues that she followed the case plan or that none of her actions show neglect

. W e will address her individual arguments, but note that even if Mother’s arguments were valid , she should have followed the case plan to avoid a finding of neglect under Idaho Code section 16

- 2002(3) (b). Mother must also show the court did not have substantial and competent evidence of the conduct in section 16

- 2002(3)(a) ’s definition

. She does not argue either

. Even if she had, trial testimony about missed visitations, incarceration, and instability in the home could provide s ubstantial and competent evidence to support the trial court’s neglect finding. Mother argues that her issue with alcohol did not rise to a level that warranted termination because she admitted her past issues, reached out for help, and successfully went through a child protection action in 2010. However, b oth parents testified that they had episodes of alcohol abuse for extended periods of time from 2009 through 2013 . During that time, numerous witnesses testified that Mother and Father were unable to car e for the children or maintain a clean and sanitary home. Thus, evidence in the record supports the trial court’s decision that alcohol contributed to neglect. Additionally , Mother argues there was no evidence that show ed any addiction or a long

time use o f methamphetamine . Therefore, she contends methamphetamine should not have been a continuing concern. The court found that Mother and Father used methamphetamine in their

room and that use continued on a frequent basis through 2011 into 2012. Mother and Fa ther testified that they used meth in 2011 and 2012, and both Mother and Father tested positive in May 2012 for levels that showed daily, constant use. However, the trial court made no finding that Mother was addicted to methamphetamine. Instead, the court found that Mother had neglected her children when she was under the influence and not supervising them . The court also found Mother had failed to comply with the case plan by not providing proof through testing that she was sober . S ubstantial and competen t evidence supports these finding s and therefore the court could properly use these findings in determining neglect. Mother argues that her many moves to different homes do not establish clear and convincing evidence of neglect because her children moved just as many times under IDHW’s12 care. Mother explains that some of her moves won’t repeat themselves because she lost some disability income when the children were removed, so she had to move to a smaller house. The trial court explained that it found the moves concerning because they were evictions for non

payment and not planned moves . The court explained that eviction s are different because they are more emotional and traumatic on a family. Whi l e the children were not living with their parents for sever al of the evictions, the children had visitations with their parents at these residences and were aware of the evictions. The trial court considered the evictions as part of Mother and Father’s larger problem of instability, which was also established thro ugh Mother and Father’s time away from the children due to incarcerations and substance abuse problems. Thus, Mother’s many moves are evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support the court’s neglect finding

. Mother additionally argues that no ev idence showed the children suffered harm from an unsanitary home that would justify termination. However, “ Idaho’ s termination statute exists ‘not merely to alleviate harm but to prevent it.’” In re Doe , 156 Idaho at ___, 320 P.3d at 1269 (quoting In the I nterest of Cheatwood, 108 Idaho at 220, 697 P.2d at 1234 ). Teachers from the children’s school, law enforcement officers, and social workers all testified that the home was cluttered and dirty in 2009 and 2010. While the 2010 case was vacated, in July 2011 an officer cited both Mother and Father for misdemeanor injury to a child because of their home’s condition. That officer found the home was a mess with garbage, dog feces, old food , and piles of clothes. Other witnesses testified that the piles of dirty clothes in the house at one point reached five

- feet high, items rested against the wood stove, mold grew in a cup in B.M. ’s room, and sha rp objects were within S.M. ’s reach. Any of these conditions could have caused the children immediate physical harm, bu t luckily they did not. Hence , the fact that Mother and Father’s homes were dirty and cluttered from 2009 until 2013 is a factor the trial court could rely on to find neglect

. Further, Mother fails to recognize that the court did not terminate Mother’s rig hts solely because of Mother’s unsanitary home, multiple moves, meth amphetamine use, or alcohol struggles. The record indicates that at several times during the case , Mother was under the influence of drugs and alcohol in her bedroom and did not supervise the children

. Mother allo wed S.M.’s health to grow poor enough that he was diagnosed with failure to thrive . Mother missed multiple visitations. Mother was incarcerated several times. Mother’s actions did not13 comply with the case plan and showed she failed to provide her children with proper parental care and control. Thus, substantial and competent evidence supports the court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence established neglect

. Mother also contends that at the time of trial, the parents’ home was without clutter and she was drug

- free. The trial court acknowledged that Mother and Father may now have an uncluttered home. The court noted that Mother has attended counseling for several months and had not tested positive for drugs in several urine t ests during her probation. The court indicated that although Mother and Father may be drug free, stable, and progressing in treatment, the court did not see an y overwhelming evidence of this. Mother and Father did not provide any documentation to show the y completed treatment. The court noted that Mother and Father’s improvements were “too little too late.” Even if the court had found that Mother had shown she was now fully complying with the case plan, compliance only occurred after the termination proce edings began. In another case, this Court affirmed a neglect finding where a father failed to demonstrate signs of im provement or compliance with his case plan until after the Department initiated the termination proceedings. In re Doe , 151 Idaho 356, 366, 256 P.3d 764, 774 (2011). Similarly, here the termination proceedings began in May 2013, and most of Mother’s claimed progress is unproven and has occurred since then

. Because the progress is recent, it does not outweigh the long track record of neglect o f her children

. 2. Substantial and competent evidence supports that trial court’s finding that terminating Mother ’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest s
. When a trial court determines whether terminating parental rights is in the child’s best interests, the trial court may consider the stability and permanency of the home, unemployment of the parent, the financial contribu tion of the parent to the child’ s care after the child is placed in protective custody, improvement of child w hile in foste r care, the parent’ s efforts to improve his o r her situation, and the parent’ s co ntinuing problems with the law. In re Doe , 156 Idaho at ___ , 320 P.3d at 1270. Mother argues t he trial court abused its discretion when it found IDHW presented clear and conv incing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interests because t he trial court shou ld have considered the children’s unique bond with their parents and the fact that the parents love their childr en and their children love them.14 The court fou nd it was in the children’s best interests to terminate Mother and Father’s parental rights due to numerous factors. The court noted that terminating parental rights protected the children from isolation from their grandparents. The court also noted termin ation gave them a home free from alcohol and drug abuse, a financially stable environment, a clean and sanitary home, stability, and a situation where their h ealth and welfare was not at risk. Substantial and competent evidence in the record supports these findings. As discussed above, Mother and Father’s home had been unstable for over four years. They were incarcerated, evicted, and abused substances. They had troubl e keeping a clean home . They did not attend the children’s appointments and visits. Mother and Father missed multiple hearings , which shows they do not have their children’s best interest s as a main priority

. The record also indicates that the children’s Aunt could provide a stable home for the children to grow up in . This was based upon the ti me Aunt and Uncle had already spent with the children and positive reports from family members and IDHW. Thus, substantial and competent evidence in the record supports the trial court’s finding that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in the children ’s best interests. In addition to this evidence, love does not always translate into the ability to discharge parental responsibilities. Idaho Dep’ t of Health & Welfare v. Doe , 149 Idaho 165, 171, 233 P.3d 96, 102 (2010). Here, Mother’s love for her childr en does not override the court’s finding that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in her children’s best interests

. The court acknowledged the children and parents loved each other. However, the court stated that Mother and Father’s testimony about lo ve and a rich family life was contrary to testimony that they spent days in their bedrooms and that B.M. made dinner several time s a week. Additional testimony indicated that B.M. and A.M. spent most of their time next door at their grandmother ’ s and that Mother and Father would not call to check on them

. S.M.’s doctor found S.M. failed to thrive with Mother and Father and that his condition improved in foster care. Hence , substantial and competent evidence in the record supports the trial court ’s find ing t hat terminating Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests despite the love between Mother and her children

. B. T he trial court properly considered Mother’s disabilities and IDHW’s services. Mother argues the trial court failed to consi der her disabilities and the IDHW’s lack of meaningful supportive services. Mother argues that IDHW should have provided her additional services given her disabilities. She states that her disabilities include a loss of memory from a stroke she suffered af ter S.M

. was born, which she made IDHW aware of early in the case. She15 asserts that IDHW did not concern themselv es with her counseling progress or how her memory and disabilities affected her visitation and her ability to keep a sanitary home

. She contend s that she also suffered from bi

- polar disorder, irritable bowel syndrome, post

- traumatic stress disorder, and migraines

. First, the trial court did consider Mother’s disabilities in its decision. The court noted that Mother reported a stroke th at affecte d her memory. However, the court pointed out that Mother put no medical testimony on at tr ial about how the stroke impacted her. The court concluded that because Mother had provided no medical testimony about her stroke, the court could not conclude that h er stroke was the reason she had trouble with her memory. The court noted that the evidence suggested that her memory issues might also be drug

- related. As an example, the court used Mother’s failure to remember shoplifting after she had taken a large amou nt of prescription drugs. T he court acknowledged that Mother testified that she had bi

- polar disorder, but one of Mother’s treating doctors instead testified it was major depressive disorder. The court noted Mother testified that her stroke and mental heal th condition did not affect her ability to clean and maintain the home. She instead stated that it only affected her ability to keep appointments. Therefore , the court did consider her disabilities, but also considered the fact that they were self

- reported and occurring in conjunction with her drug and alcohol problems. Second, there is no evidence that IDHW failed to provide meaningful supportive services to the family. “Not infrequently, this Court is presented with arguments that the Department did
not do enough when the analysis should primarily focus on what the putative parent did or did not do.” Idaho Dep’ t of Health & Welfare v. Doe , 150 Idaho 88, 91, 244 P.3d 232, 235 (2010). That is the case here. Mother contends that IDHW was aware of her stroke and her memory troubles, but offered her no special assistance in complying with her plan

. Mother asserts that IDHW only provided her a written visitation schedule and did not follow up with additional contact to help her overcome her disabilities. The co urt instead found that Mother had not taken advantage of IDHW’s services and instead blamed others. Substantial and competent evidence supports this finding. Numerous witnesses testified that IDHW made repeated efforts to help the family

. The case manager testified that she returned Mother’s phone calls. Other social workers added that the case manager and other IDHW employees also returned phone calls, provided written schedules, and reminded Mother after every visitation of when the next visit was. The co urt16 found that throughout the case, Mother constantly blame d others rather than taking responsibility for the things she ha d control over. Indeed, one of Mother’s treating providers at counseling testified that Mother took little responsibility for the thi ngs she had control over. This lack of responsibility permeate d Mother’s testimony at trial, where she very rarely took any responsibility for her actions

. Additionally, a t many hearings over the case’s life, t he court found that IDHW provided reasonable e fforts to reunify the parents with their children . The record indicates IDHW provided the parents visitation, drug testing, mental health counseling, and other services. Thus, the court properly considered IDHW’s services and found IDHW made reasonable eff orts

. T he trial court properly considered Mother’s disability and the IDHW’s efforts , and substantial and competent evidence support s the trial court ’s judgment that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of Mother’s parental rights due to neg lect and the children’s best intere sts. Therefore , the trial court did not err in terminating Mother’s parental rights

. V . CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights. Costs to IDHW. Justices EISMANN, J. JONES, HOR TON and WALTERS, J., Pro Tem, CONCUR.