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.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 317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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 judgment terminating parental rights, remanded 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 their closing arguments by 

August 12. 

In a hearing held October 3, 2016, the magistrate expressed that he had experienced 

software failure resulting in the permanent loss of a significant amount of his written work. The 
2

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 record 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 

relationships 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 titled, 

“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 magistrate’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 amended judgment reiterating its conclusion that termination was in the 

children’s best interests and that the parent-child relationships 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 holding 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) requires 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 order 
3

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 direct 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 magistrate’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 conclusions 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). Second, the findings must address whether terminating 

the relationship is in the children’s best interests. Id.