Opinion ID: 2353738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

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

Text: The magistrate's decision is well-reasoned, detailed, and thoughtful. The court expressly noted its obligation to terminate parental rights only if the State proved its case by clear and convincing evidence. The court then articulated numerous grounds for its findings that Mother neglected her children and that termination was in the children's best interest. First, the magistrate noted that Mother has a long history of child protection referrals dating back to 2003. . . . Each of th[e] previous cases dealt with [ ] some or all of the issues present in the underlying 2009 case. The magistrate then considered a number of factors relevant to the State's allegation of neglect. The court found that Mother keeps a clean, tidy home but is unable to pay rent or household expenses without the help of roommates. This reliance on roommates, according to social worker testimony, creates an inappropriate living situation for Mother's children. Furthermore, Mother's own testimony and self-provided financial information led the court to conclude that Mother is unable, without the help of roommates, to afford a home large enough for her children. Mother testified that even if the court were to order return of the children that day, she would not have the ability to take them for at least 30-45 days. The court also found that Mother's chemical dependency and anger issues contributed to its conclusion that Mother neglected her children. According to the trial testimony, Mother failed to complete the drug treatment programs mandated by her case plan. Nor did Mother timely seek help with her anger management, as the case plan required. According to the magistrate, [Mother's] case workers and care providers worked hard to try and help her succeed on her case plan. Unfortunately, [Mother] was not willing to put for[th] the same amount of effort to help herself until after the petition [for termination] had already been filed. Mother also missed a number of scheduled visits with her children since the children have been in State custody. The visits she has had were described as becoming chaotic as the visits went on. Mother, the court found, has difficulty properly managing all four children at the same time without getting frustrated, and the State caseworkers assigned to her case do not feel she has completed the [visitation] terms of the case plan. Her continued inappropriate comments during observed visits [with the children], as late as February of 2011, evidence [Mother's] inability to put the children['s] mental health and wellbeing before her own emotional needs. Mother has continually struggled to secure long-term employment. Mother was unemployed during the trial and had worked only sporadically during the preceding eighteen months. There was no explanation why [Mother] cannot find and maintain full time employment. Based on this, the magistrate concluded that Mother lacked a commitment to gain financial stability during the seventeen or so months the case plan has been in effect and Mother is unlikely to change her ways even if given more time to complete the case plan. Moreover, the court found that the children have adjusted to, grown emotionally, and generally excelled in the relative stability and consistency of foster care. J.B., the oldest child, even testified that he would prefer to stay in foster care because he feels safe and secure there and because he is afraid that Mother will relapse. Finally, the magistrate recognized that Mother has made strides to complete her case plan since October 2010, but it noted that [Mother] freely admits she didn't do much on the case plan until then. By the time of trial, Mother had not complied with the terms of her original case plan. Nor had she completed the updated case plan the court ordered in October 2010. For all of these reasons, the magistrate concluded that Mother, despite recent success with sobriety and in working on her case plan, has a very unstable lifestyle and she does not have the sustained ability to provide [her] children with the parental care necessary to protect their health, safety and well-being. The magistrate therefore decided that Mother neglected her children, as defined by I.C. § 16-1602(25). Furthermore, Mother did not complete her case plan; and she did not reunite with her children within the requisite timeframe because the children lived in foster care for eighteen months preceding trial. The magistrate therefore determined that Mother also neglected her children as defined by I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b). The magistrate then concluded that terminating Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interest. The court reached this result for a number of reasons: social workers on the case recommended it; the children have been in foster care for three-and-a-half of the past five years; Mother is unable to adequately provide for the children due to chronic unemployment and chemical dependency; Mother is unable to prioritize the children's physical and emotional needs; the children's need for stability outweighs Mother's liberty interest in raising the children; and, despite Mother's apparent love for her children, there is little chance for reunification. On Appeal, Mother would simply have this Court reweigh the evidence and reach a different result. Mother argues, generally, that the magistrate could not find by clear and convincing evidence that she has neglected her children. Mother's argument focuses on her most recent child protective proceeding case plan, contending that, since May 2010, she has substantially met her case plan obligations. Mother relies almost exclusively on the testimony of Shelly Larson, the social worker assigned to her case. Mother also argues, albeit in passing, that the State has failed to make all possible efforts to reunite her with the children. Mother does not, however, make any argument regarding the magistrate's finding that termination is in the children's best interest. The State points out that Mother has been involved with child protective proceedings and court-ordered case plans for much of the past eight years. According to the State, it provided ample resources and support for Mother over that eight-year period. The State also notes that, despite Mother's recent progress, she has failed to complete a case plan, and a number of prior Idaho cases have upheld termination on similar facts. We have said in several termination cases that our role is not to reweigh the evidence on appeal. Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, ___ Idaho ___, ___, 260 P.3d 1169, 1175-76 (2011) (quoting Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207, 210, 233 P.3d 138, 141 (2010)). Indeed, it has become axiomatic that [w]here a trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, [this Court] will not disturb the trial court's findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence. Id. (quoting Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207, 210, 233 P.3d 138, 141 (2010)). Yet, despite this well-accepted standard, Mother asks us to revisit the magistrate's findings without any real argument that the evidence was deficient. She relies on a single witness' testimony in asking the Court to overturn the magistrate's findings. The magistrate, however, explicitly noted that it applied a clear and convincing evidence standard; and it evaluated in considerable detail the testimony of fifteen witnesses, none of whom suggested Mother was an able parent. Furthermore, the evidence that Mother has not completed her most recent case plan is uncontested; and her children have lived outside her home for the eighteen months preceding the trial. The magistrate noted that despite Mother's recent progress, she was entirely unwilling to work at reuniting with the children before October 2010. In sum, the magistrate court adequately considered all the evidence before it, including the testimony Mother asks this Court to focus on. With little exception, the evidence points to Mother's inability to provide for her children. Accordingly, we conclude that substantial, competent evidence supports the magistrate's finding that Mother neglected her children. The magistrate similarly relied on substantial, competent evidence in deciding that termination was in the children's best interest. Again, the court relied on considerable testimony that the children needed stability, which Mother admitted, by her own verbal and non-verbal actions before and during trial, she could not provide. We therefore conclude that substantial, competent evidence supports the magistrate's finding that termination is in the children's best interest.