Opinion ID: 2630966
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The magistrate court's termination of Doe's parental rights was based on substantial and competent evidence.

Text: When the State intervenes to terminate the parent-child relationship, the requisites of due process must be met. This requirement necessitates the State prove the grounds for terminating a parent-child relationship by clear and convincing evidence. In re Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 345, 144 P.3d 597, 599 (2006) (internal citation omitted). [W]here the trial court has explicitly determined the case by application of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence. In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761, 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). Substantial competent evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Folks v. Moscow Sch. Dist. No. 281, 129 Idaho 833, 836, 933 P.2d 642, 645 (1997) (quoting Welch v. Cowles Publ'g Co., 127 Idaho 361, 365, 900 P.2d 1372, 1376 (1995)).
Idaho's Termination of Parent and Child Relationship Act includes in its purpose: Implicit in this chapter is the philosophy that wherever possible family life should be strengthened and preserved and that the issue of severing the parent and child relationship is of such vital importance as to require a judicial determination in place of attempts at severance by contractual arrangements, express or implied, for the surrender and relinquishment of children. I.C. § 16-2001(2). In that spirit, I.C. § 16-2005 permits the Department to petition the court for termination of the parent-child relationship when it is in the child's best interest and one of the following factors exist: (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, or (e) incarceration of parent for a substantial period of time during the child's minority. The magistrate court here found that the Department proved, by clear and convincing evidence, neglect as defined in I.C. §§ 16-2002(3)(a) and 16-1602(25), as well as I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b), and that termination was in the best interest of the children. Idaho Code § 16-2002(3)(a) provides that neglected means conduct as defined in I.C. § 16-1602(25), which includes, in relevant part, a child who: [I]s without proper parental care and control, or subsistence, medical or other care or control 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... or ... [w]hose parents, guardian or other custodian are unable to discharge their responsibilities 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. I.C. § 16-1602(25)(a)-(b). Idaho Code § 16-2002(3)(b) defines neglected as [t]he parent has failed to comply with the court's orders in a child protective act case or the case plan, and reunification of the child with his or her parent(s) has not occurred within the time standards set forth in section 16-1629(9), Idaho Code. Idaho Code § 16-1629(9) states: There shall be a rebuttable presumption that if a child is placed in the custody of the department and was also placed in out of the home care for a period not less than fifteen (15) out of the last twenty-two (22) months from the date the child entered shelter care, the department shall initiate a petition for termination of parental rights. This presumption may be rebutted by a finding of the court that the filing of a petition for termination of parental rights would not be in the best interests of the child or reasonable efforts have not been provided to reunite the child with his family, or the child is placed permanently with a relative. This statute merely creates a presumption in favor of the department initiating a termination petition when a child has been in the state's custody and not in the parent's care for fifteen out of twenty-two months. It does not create a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate parental rights. State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 536, 164 P.3d 814, 816 (2007). The magistrate court here based its determination that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children on the parents' history and/or ongoing use and abuse of controlled substances, which has resulted in the children being in foster care for seventeen (17) of the last twenty-two (22) months as of June 26, 2009. Evidence regarding Doe's history and/or ongoing use and abuse of controlled substances included the previous Child Protection Act proceedings; his positive test results for methamphetamine from May 4, 2009, July 18, 2009, and July 23, 2009; and his refusal to submit to testing on other required test dates. In addition to this evidence, hospital staff, social workers, the guardian ad litem, and the foster mother testified regarding their interactions and experiences with the children and the parents. The guardian ad litem testified as to how the children behaved during her visits with them, beginning on May 18, 2009. She stated that A.D. tries to control everything around her, which is very common with children that feel like they don't have control over situations. And I guess the best words I would use to describe her would be sad, confused, and responsible. Ju.D. was described as follows: [Ju.D.] is sad, he runs away and hides. He's very withwithdrawn. He's angry, he's disruptive. He has poor impulse control. And he has cognitive and speech problems. You shouldn't diagnose a kid this young, and I don't like to label kids anyways, but he would meet all the criteria for oppositional defiant disorder. The guardian ad litem further stated that Ju.D. functions at about 18 to 24-month level, and he's 42 months old, and he's even further behind in his speech. Finally, with regard to Je.D., the guardian ad litem testified: She has some mild speech and definite senssensory issues. She seemed not to have a startle response to loud noises, which is a sensory kind of thing. She seems to have a high pain tolerance ... from a sensory issue perspective, she doesn't seem quite right for her age. Her speech is not within recommended ranges for a child herher age. The guardian ad litem also stated that at the visits she observed with the parents, the parents seemed to be very overwhelmed. The guardian ad litem recommended that parental rights be terminated: There's no doubt in my mind that [the mother] and [Doe] love their children very much and that their children love them. That's clear. They dotheythey, you know, they show affection toward each other. However, the first five years are critical to a child's development, especially when the child has been subjected to in-utero substances. [The children] do not have the luxury to wait for their parents to be physically, emotionally, or cognitively available to them. Their parents have a long history of broad-based problems. They've been they have had substantial services to help them and to try to keep their family together, and the parents are either unwilling or unable to address the issues that prevent them from being able to parent their children. As a result, I believe it would be in the best interest of the children for the parental rights to be terminated. The children's foster mom also testified as to their behavior. She stated that when Je.D. was first returned to her parents at 18 months of age, she was a [v]ery vibrant little girl, was learning how to feed herself. She would take time out with no problem. And she was just a very happy little girl. When Je.D. was returned to the foster home seven months later, the foster mom testified that she had many behavioral issues: She has an extreme temper problem, she was hurting herself. When it came for time out, she was throwing her head against the wall, and throwing herself back against the floor. And sometimes, just out of the blue, would just starting [sic] screaming and throwing herself on the floor for no reason. Regarding Je.D.'s speech, the foster mom stated: She was delayed from whenafter she left our home. She was saying thank you, please, with no problem, automatically when she got a drink or whatever she was handed to [sic]. When she came back to me, she refused to say please, just thank you.... She was actually dropstarting to drop her first syllables with her words, and that concerned me. When Ju.D. was initially in foster care, the foster parents had concerns about his speech and he is currently in special education preschool. He also exhibited aggressive behaviors such as biting and hitting when he was returned to foster care. When A.D. was returned to foster care, at age five, she did not know how to count to ten or know her ABCs. Social worker Pamela Derby also testified that it would be in the children's best interest to terminate parental rights: I know that [the parents] love their kids, but I've had a lot of experience with methamphetamine, and they are unavailable to their children due to drug usage. And that's been ongoing for too long. We've got [Je.D.] that's already a methamphetamine addict.... Parents that are using and abusing substances are absent. They may be physically present, but they're they're absent emotionally and mentally. They are unable to take care of the needs of their children. Usually, in these families, the oldest one starts being very parentified and start taking care of children. And inin my experience, if you are unable to stay sober forin this case, we have been unable to stay sober for two years. In a thirty-page Memorandum Decision, the magistrate court discussed in detail the previous case involving the family, as well as the testimony of the hospital staff, the case workers, the substance abuse counselor, the guardian ad litem, the foster mother, and Dr. Engelhart. The magistrate court thus based its determination that termination of Doe's parental rights was in the best interest of the children upon substantial and competent evidence.