Opinion ID: 2353738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Substantial and competent evidence supports the court's decision to terminate Father's parental rights.

Text: Although the magistrate court was significantly less thorough in its treatment of Father's case, [2] it also found through clear and convincing evidence that Father had neglected his three childrenG.H., D.H., and L.H.and that it was in their best interest that his rights be terminated. As to the neglect prong of the termination standard under I.C. § 16-2005, the court found: As for [Father], the evidence was undisputed that [Father] is currently serving a prison sentence and that he will not be eligible for parole until late 2013. Likewise, the testimony and evidence was undisputed and shows that he has not been available to work a case plan either. Accordingly, this court must conclude that he presently lacks the ability to . . . provide these children with the parental care necessary to protect their health, safety and well-being. As such, they are neglected as defined by Idaho Code § 16-1602(25). The court also found that Father had neglected his children pursuant to section 16-2002(3)(b) because he had neither completed a case plan nor reunited with the children within the time limits of section 16-1629(9); in fact, reunification would be impossible for at least another two years due to his imprisonment. As to the best interest prong, the magistrate found that because Father is in prison and not eligible for parole until late 2013, he is clearly not available to be a resource for the children. The court also found that due to Father's incarceration and Mother's proven inability to maintain a stable home, reunification would be unlikely. The court stated that the children have shown improvement in foster care and now deserve to be permanently placed in a more stable family environment which Father is simply unable to provide. The magistrate's decision that Father's children are neglected under I.C. § 16-2005 is supported by substantial and competent evidence. Under section 16-1602(25), a parent in prison for a substantial part of his children's lives clearly cannot provide any amount of parental care and control, or subsistence, medical or other care or control necessary for [their] well-being. I.C. § 16-1602(25)(a). Further, an incarcerated parent is certainly unable to discharge [his] responsibilities to and for his children and, he is leaving his children without the parental care necessary for [their] health, safety or well-being. I.C. § 16-1602(25)(b). Thus, Father's imprisonment alone constitutes neglect under section 16-1602(25). Further, the magistrate also heard competent evidence presented by Father's past social workers that Father had never completed a case plan in any of the prior or present child protective cases, which this Court has held may be taken into account in determining neglect under section 16-1602(25). In re Doe, 151 Idaho 356, 365, 256 P.3d 764, 773 (2011). Moreover, Father's undisputed failure to complete a case plan and inability to reunify with the children for at least another two years also necessitates a finding of neglect under section 16-2002(3)(b). The magistrate's finding that termination of Father's rights is in the best interest of his three children is also supported by substantial and competent evidence. The magistrate was presented with substantial, unrebutted expert testimony that the children were thriving in foster care and that placing them in a permanent, stable family environment would be crucial to their continued success. The magistrate's conclusion that the interests of the children would be best served by allowing them the opportunity to be placed in a permanent family home was therefore supported by substantial, competent evidence. In sum, because there was substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings that Father's children are neglected and that termination of his rights is in their best interest, we will not disturb those findings.