1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44537
In the Matter of the DOE CHILDREN, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age. ) ) IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and WELFARE ,
Petitioner

- Respondent ,

v.
JOHN DOE (2016

- 44) , Respondent

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 201 7 Unpublished Opinion No. 317

Filed: January 13, 2017
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez Perce County. Hon. Kent J. Merica
, Magistrate

. Amended j udgment terminating parental rights, r emanded for further proceedings

. Paige M. Nolta, Lewiston, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Marcy J. Spilker , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM
A trial for terminating the parental rights of John Doe and his wife, Jane Doe, as to three children commenced on May 10, 2016. On the following day, when the trial was not concluded, the magistrate scheduled its continuation for July 2016. The trial then continued from July 6 until July 8. At the close of trial, parties were instructed to file th eir closing arguments by August 12. In a hearing held October 3, 2016, the magistrate expressed that he had experienc ed software failure resulting in the permanent loss of a significant amount of his written work. The2

magistrate then indicated he would instead enter his findings of fact and conclusions of law on
the record. He stated : “This will constitute the only re cord of the same. The court will not reduce the following to writing, and I’m doing that in the

-- for the sake of expediency for the parties.” The magistrate proceeded to verbally pronounce detailed findings of fact and
conclusions of law from the bench. On the same day, the magistrate entered a written judgment terminating the parent

- child relationship s between John and Jane and the children. In this written judgment, aside from stating that “it is in [the children’s] best interests for the parental rights . . . to be terminated
, ” the judgment did not include any specific findings of fact or conclusions of law. Two days after entry of this written judgment, the magistrate entered an order t itled, “Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.” This order first called attention to and corrected a prior misstatement regarding the applicable statutory provision of neglect. The order also specifically incorporated by reference the m agistrate’s verbal findings of fact and conclusions of law pronounced on October 3. Finally, the order addressed the magistrate’s failure to orally discuss and conclude one of the grounds for termination that was argued by the
State. The order included a thorough written analysis on the alleged grounds for termination, ultimately concluding the State did not meet its burden of proof. The order concluded by stating
that John and Jane’s parental rights were being terminated pursuant to Counts II and III of the

“ Second Amended Petition for Termination, ” but not pursuant to Count I. The magistrate also entered a corresponding a mended j udgment reiterating its conclusion that termination was in the children’s best interests and that the parent

- child relationsh ips were terminated. Although the magistrate treated the termination petition of both parents as a consolidated

case, John now timely and separately appeals the magistrate’s judgment terminating his parental rights. Consistent with our analysis and hold ing in Jane Doe’s separate appeal, Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe , ___ Idaho ___, ___ P.3d ___ (Ct. App. 2017) , we hold that the magistrate court erred by not entering written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Idaho Code § 16

- 2010(1) requir es that “every order of the court terminating the parent and child relationship . . . shall be in writing and shall recite the findings upon which such order is based, including findings pertaining to the court’s jurisdiction.” I.C. § 16

- 2010(1) (emphasis added). Neither the magistrate’s original judgment nor the amended judgment and corresponding order3

are in compliance with the statutory mandate of I.C. § 16

- 2010(1). Therefore, we decline to address the merits of the issues presented on appeal.
We di rect that the case be remanded to the magistrate for the expedited preparation of a
written judgment containing the required findings. 1 This Court will issue a simultaneous and separate order setting forth further appellate procedures following the magist rate’s filing of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Each party is to bear its own costs and fees on appeal.

1 The findings of fact and c onclusions of law required by Idaho Code § 16

- 2010(1) must address the two necessary elements of every termination case. First, the findings must address whether one or more of the statutory grounds for termination have been established by clear and convincing evidence. I.C. § 16

- 2005(1). S ec ond, the findings must address whether terminating the relationship is in the child ren ’s best interests. Id.