Opinion ID: 4525197
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: c.r. 46.2.

Text: There is minimal case law in Idaho regarding the issuance of a no contact order. Many of the cases interpreting Idaho Code section 18-920 involve a violation of a no contact order or a no contact order that did not comply with I.C.R. 46.2. See, e.g., Cobler, 148 Idaho at 771, 229 P.3d 2 Notably, Lodge waived any argument relating to his fundamental right to parent under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality) (recognizing that the interests of parents in the custody and control of their children is a fundamental right); accord State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 536, 164 P.3d 814, 816 (2007). Consequently, this opinion does not address Lodge’s fundamental rights. 3 I.C.R. 46.2 also describes modification by a protected person. While Rule 46.2 does not describe a particular mechanism to allow a defendant to move to modify or terminate the no contact order, Idaho courts have previously recognized such motions. See, e.g., Cobler, 148 Idaho at 771, 229 P.3d at 376; State v. Hillbroom, 158 Idaho 789, 792, 352 P.3d 999, 1002 (2015) (holding that the defendant’s remedy was to seek a modification of the no contact order); State v. Castro, 145 Idaho 173, 175, 177 P.3d 387, 389 (2008). 4 at 376; State v. Herren, 157 Idaho 722, 725, 339 P.3d 1126, 1129 (2014). However, the grant of discretion to the district court regarding the issuance of no contact orders as part of a criminal case is broad. The statute only states that the no contact order may be made “forbidding contact with another person.” I.C. § 18-920. While there is nothing in the statute which suggests a limitation on who may be protected by a no contact order, the crimes referenced in Idaho Code section 18-920 suggest that the no contact order should be to protect current and future victims of crimes. All of the crimes listed in Idaho Code section 18-920 involve crimes against another person. See id. For example, the crimes include assault, battery, domestic violence, harassment, and stalking. See, e.g., I.C. §§ 18-901, 18-903, 18-918, 18-6710, 18-7905. Accordingly, no contact orders must be made to protect the current or future victims of these types of crimes. Under the facts of this case, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion. There were several findings, both by the district court and in Johnston’s report, that support a conclusion that Lodge could be a threat to his children. Johnston’s report indicated that Lodge presented a high risk of reoffending. The district court noted that Lodge had previously sexually assaulted his younger sister when she was a young girl, and had admitted to sexually assaulting an even younger female cousin. Further, the district court noted that while Lodge was awaiting sentencing and incarcerated, he contacted a sixteen-year-old girl approximately fifty times. Additionally, while Johnston’s report concluded that Lodge had primarily targeted adolescent females in the past, “the psychological literature has demonstrated that with sexual offenders, there is often crossover and undetected victims.” There is nothing in Johnston’s report to suggest Lodge’s children are immune from his predatory proclivities. The district court’s decision appears to conclude that Lodge posed a potential threat to his children. This conclusion is supported by the findings and recommendations in Johnston’s report. Accordingly, the district court exercised reason in reaching its decision and did not abuse its discretion in failing to create an exception to the no contact order for Lodge’s biological children. Additionally, Lodge has not pointed to any evidence in the record establishing what, if any, parental rights he currently has concerning these children. In the absence of such proof, there was no reason for the sentencing court to treat the victims’ children any differently from other children. Nevertheless, nothing in this decision would preclude Lodge from attempting to establish paternity and obtain visitation rights through a separate civil proceeding. If he were 5 successful, he could then seek to modify the terms of the no contact order in this case. However, any such modification would be left to the sound discretion of the sentencing judge.