1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 48226
In the Interest of: Jane Doe I, A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. ) ) ) STATE OF IDAHO , DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE,

Petitioner

- Respondent ,

v.
JANE DOE (2020

- 31) , Respondent

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: October 16, 2020
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Bryan K. Murray , Magistrate.
Judgment terminating parental rights, affirmed

. David Martinez, Bannock County Public Defender; Scott A. Pearson , Deputy Public Defender, Pocatello, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Madison N. Mil es , Deputy Attorney General, Pocatello, for respondent.

________________________________________________ LORELLO, Judge Jane Doe ( 2020

- 31) appeals from the judgment terminating her parental rights , contending there was insufficient evidence of neglect . We affirm.2 I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Jane Doe is the mother 1 of the minor child in this action, who was born in 2008. T he Idaho Department of Health and Welfare received a referral concerning Doe ’ s mental fitness and the cleanliness of her home. The Department conducted a safety assessment of Doe ’ s home, finding the floor covered with discarded food packaging and a broken lamp. After Doe claimed to have been in direct contact with the President of the United States and admitted spending money she anticipated receiving from the President for report ing undocumented immigrants, the safety
assessor became concerned with Doe ’ s mental health and financial stability. The safety assessor informed Doe that he would return in a week or two and that, in the meantime, Doe needed to keep

a pre

- existing appoint ment with a mental health specialist for a psychological evaluation. When the safety assessor returned, the home remained unsanitary and Doe had cancelled the psychological evaluation. Soon thereafter, Doe was hospitalized pursuant to an involuntary com mitment due to her deteriorating mental health, and custody of the child was transferred to the Department. Doe remained hospitalized for the next six months. During that time, two of Doe ’ s siblings obtained a guardianship over Doe, which remained in pla ce through the conclusion of the termination proceeding. After Doe ’ s release from the hospital, the magistrate court approved a case plan for
her and conducted several review hearings while the child was in the Department ’ s custody. Ultimately, the Depar tment petitioned to terminate Doe ’ s parental rights. The magistrate court
terminated Doe ’ s parental rights after finding clear and convincing evidence that she had neglected
the child and that termination is in the child ’ s best interests. Doe appeals.
I I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW On appeal from a decision terminating parental rights, this Court examines whether the decision is supported by substantial and competent evidence, which means such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a c onclusion

. Doe v. Doe , 148 Idaho 243,

1 Doe is not the child’s biological mother. During the termination hearing, Doe testified that she adopted the child as an infant. Nothing in the record indicates that the child has an adoptive father.3

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 S upreme 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. State v. Doe , 143
Idaho 343, 346, 144 P.3d 597, 600 (2006). Clear and convincing evidence is generally understood to be evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain. Roe
v. Doe , 143 Idaho 188, 191, 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006). Further , the trial court ’ s decision must be supported by objectively supportable grounds. Doe , 143 Idaho at 346, 144 P.3d at 600.
III.
ANALYSIS Doe argues that there wa s insufficient evidence to support the magistrate court ’ s neglect finding. The Department responds that substantial, competent evidence supports the magistrate

court ’ s termination decision. We affirm the magistrate court ’ s termination decision. 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). Idaho Code Section 1 6

- 2005 permits a party to petition the court for termination of the parent

- child 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 relatio nship 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 re main 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. Doe does not challenge the magistrate court ’ s finding that termination is in the child ’ s best interests. Thus, our task is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence supporting the statutory basis for termination. The magistrate court found, by clear and convincing evidence,4

that the statutory basis for termination was neglect. Idaho Code Section 16

- 1602(31)(a) provides 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 the child ’ s well

- being because of the conduct or
omission of hi s or her parents, or their neglect or refusal to provide them. Neglect also includes situations where the parent has failed to comply with the court ’ s orders or the case plan in a child protection case, 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. § 16

- 2002(3)(b). The mag istrate court found that Doe suffers from severe mental health issues that render
her incapable of comprehending the child ’ s needs, depriving the child of proper parental care and support. The Department instituted the underlying child protection action i n response to Doe suffering a severe psychotic break. Doe ’ s first case worker testified that Doe claimed to be in contact with the President and that he would pay her for reporting undocumented immigrants. This delusion resulted in Doe accusing relatives and community members, including employees of the
child ’ s school, of being un documented immigrants and Doe ’ s eventual commitment to a state hospital for mental health treatment. Doe herself testified about her hospitalization for the first six months of the child protection action. Despite this lengthy hospitalization, Doe claime d that she
d id not understand why she was hospitalized and stated her belie f that the hospitalization was unnecessary. Doe did, however, admit to a previous diagnosis of depression, taking medications prescribed by the hospital, and attending counseling. Doe ’ s second caseworker testified that Doe ’ s psychiatric medications left her “ emotionally flat, ” s uch that she would exhibit little reaction to receiving good or bad news. Doe ’ s mental health issues, including a diagnosis of major depression,

were appar ently so severe that her siblings obtained guardianship over her

. There is substantial evidence in the record demonstrating the negative effect Doe ’ s mental illness had on her parenting ability. Doe ’ s first caseworker testified to admissions fro m Doe that she depended on members of her church for support. According to Doe, members of her church
clean ed her home on more than one occasion . The guardian ad litem testified that Doe is also dependent upon her family for some of her needs. Doe herse lf testified that, prior to being hospitalized, her home was so unsanitary it was unsafe for the child.5

Regarding the direct effects of Doe ’ s parenting (or lack thereof) on the child, Doe ’ s second caseworker testified that the child suffered from develop mental delays upon entering the Department ’ s custody. Despite being in fifth grade when removed from Doe ’ s care, the child read
at a second

- grade level and was in need of speech therapy. Even some simple tasks were beyond
the child ’ s capability. For exa mple, one of the child ’ s foster parents testified that the child could not count money or recall her own birthday. However, that same foster parent testified that, while in her care, the child made significant improvements in a matter of weeks in her abil ity to identify different denominations of coins and bills, her confidence when reading aloud, and her general ability to remember information. Doe ’ s second caseworker testified that, despite expressing
interest in the child ’ s education, Doe was unwilling or unable to motivate the child to complete school assignments during visitations. Instead, Doe would allow the child to play with electronic devices. Additionally, Doe testified that she was unware of the child ’ s need for speech therapy prior to her re moval. Doe contends that the magistrate court erred because she has not manifested a prolific inability to provide for the child. Doe asserts that, since being released from the hospital, she has
lived alone ; maintained a clean, stable home ; provided f or her own daily needs ; participated in

couns eling and medication management; visited the child; and took a sincere interest in the child ’ s well

- being. However, the magistrate court found that Doe would require round

- the

- clock supervision to safely parent the child. Of particular concern was Doe ’ s admission to lacking a plan to protect the child should Doe suffer another psychotic break. Additionally, although Doe showed
interest in the child ’ s education and well

- being, her caseworkers testified that Doe would not follow through on this professed interest. Doe ’ s second caseworker further testified that Doe failed to improve her parenting and did not progress beyond supervised visits, which the child resisted attending, thro ughout the child protection action. Finally, there is Doe ’ s guardianship. Doe admitted that her siblings are her co

- guardians, but disclaimed any understanding why the guardianship was put in place and displayed little understanding of how it functioned . Moreover, other than seeking a means to take her brother ’ s name off the title to her residence, Doe did not testify to any efforts she made to dissolve the guardianship

-- a required task in Doe ’ s case plan. As the magistrate court observed, Doe cannot b e a fit parent for the child when Doe cannot care for herself. The above

- described evidence6

sufficiently supports the magistrate court ’ s finding that Doe neglected the child. Consequently,
Doe ’ s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the neglect finding fails.
IV.
CONCLUSION
There was s ubstantial, competent evidence to support the magistrate court ’ s finding that Doe neglected the child. Thus, Doe has failed to show error in the magistrate court ’ s termination decision. Accordingly, the magistrate court ’ s judgment terminating Doe ’ s parental rights is
affirmed. Chief Judge HUSKEY and Judge BRAILSFORD, CONCUR

.