Opinion ID: 874165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The magistrate was permitted to take jurisdiction over the children, even though the allegations of abuse were against only one parent.

Text: Jane Doe argues that in order to take jurisdiction over a child, the CPA requires a court to find jurisdictional grounds as to both parents, at least when the child is being removed from the care of both parents. Jane Doe argues that it was undisputed that she was willing and able to parent the children. While Jane Doe makes a number of due process-related arguments, she clarifies in her Reply Brief that the due process arguments are not an attack on the constitutionality of the CPA but, rather, that the due process arguments support her proposed reading of the CPA. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, over which this Court exercises free review. State v. Hensley, 145 Idaho 852, 855, 187 P.3d 1227, 1230 (2008). The statute is viewed as a whole, and the analysis begins with the language of the statute, which is given its plain, usual and ordinary meaning. Id. In determining the plain meaning of the statute, effect must be given to all the words of the statute if possible, so that none will be void, superfluous, or redundant. State v. Mercer, 143 Idaho 108, 109, 138 P.3d 308, 309 (2006) (quoting In re Winton Lumber Co., 57 Idaho 131, 136, 63 P.2d 664, 666 (1936)). The plain meaning of a statute will prevail unless the clearly expressed legislative intent is to the contrary or unless the plain meaning leads to absurd results. Gillihan v. Gump, 140 Idaho 264, 266, 92 P.3d 514, 516 (2004), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thacker, 148 Idaho 879, 231 P.3d 524 (2009). If the language of the statute is capable of more than one reasonable construction it is ambiguous, and a statute that is ambiguous must be construed with legislative intent in mind, which is ascertained by examining not only the literal words of the statute, but the reasonableness of the proposed interpretations, the policy behind the statute, and its legislative history. State v. Yzaguirre, 144 Idaho 471, 475, 163 P.3d 1183, 1187 (2007). Idaho Code § 16-1603(1) provides: Except as otherwise provided herein, the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all proceedings under this chapter concerning any child living or found within the state: (a) Who is neglected, abused or abandoned by his parents, guardian or other legal custodian, or who is homeless; or (b) Whose parents or other legal custodian fails to provide a stable home environment. (Emphasis added). The magistrate took jurisdiction over Son pursuant to I.C. § 16-1603(1)(a) based on John Doe's abuse of Son, while noting that the there were no allegations that Jane Doe abused, neglected or abandoned Son. Jane Doe argues that the use of parents in subsections (a) and (b) means that the court must find that both parents neglected, abused or abandoned the child or failed to provide a stable home environment. According to Jane Doe, had the Legislature intended the abuse of one parent to suffice, it would have used a parent instead of parents. The Department counters, arguing that the word parents includes parent and that if the Legislature intended what Jane Doe claims it intended, it would have used something like, every parent from whom the child was removed. Both interpretations are reasonable under a plain reading of the CPA. Idaho Code § 16-1603(1) is therefore ambiguous as to whether a court has jurisdiction over a child who has been abused by only one parent. While the preservation of the family unit is one of the stated policies of the CPA, the policy also states, [a]t all times the health and safety of the child shall be the primary concern. I.C. § 16-1601. Thus, the focus is on the childwhether the child has been abused, neglected or abandoned as defined by statute. The clause by his parents, guardian or other legal custodian is aimed at distinguishing instances in which the child has been abused, neglected or abandoned by someone who legally cares for the child from instances in which the child has been abused, neglected or abandoned by a person who is not legally responsible for the child's care. When a child is abused by someone who is legally entrusted to care for him or her, the child's health and safety is at risk such that taking jurisdiction over the child and removing him or her from home is justified. Jane Doe argues that this interpretation leads to an absurd result, as it permits a court to take a child from his or her home based on the actions of one parent, even when there is another parent who did not take part in the abuse and who is willing and able to care for the child. While we are sympathetic to such a parent, as Jane Doe appears to be, when a child has suffered abuse by a parent, the court must be able to take swift initial action to protect the child. A child might have a deceased parent, a parent outside the court's jurisdiction or a parent that cannot be readily located and contacted, in which case, under Jane Doe's proposed interpretation, the court would be crippled from protecting a child who is being abused by a parent. Jane Doe's argument brushes over the distinction between a finding of jurisdiction over a child and other actions the court might take pursuant to the CPA, such as removing a child from his or her home and vesting legal custody in the Department. Taking jurisdiction over a child is an initial step under the CPA and does not dictate the ultimate disposition of the case. Under the CPA, the court can keep a child in shelter care only if, upon completion of the shelter care hearing, it is shown that: (a) A petition has been filed; and (b) There is reasonable cause to believe the child comes within the jurisdiction of the court under this chapter and either: (i) The department made reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for shelter care but the efforts were unsuccessful; or (ii) The department made reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for shelter care but was not able to safely provide preventive services; and (c) The child could not be placed in the temporary sole custody of a parent having joint legal or physical custody; and (d) It is contrary to the welfare of the child to remain in the home; and (e) It is in the best interests of the child to remain in temporary shelter care pending the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing.. . . I.C. § 16-1615(5) (emphases added). Thus, the court cannot keep the child in shelter care merely upon finding reasonable cause to believe it has jurisdiction over the child. The court must additionally find, amongst other factors, that it is in the child's best interests to remain in shelter care and that the child could not be placed in the care of another parent who has joint legal or physical custody. Similarly, after an adjudicatory hearing, the court can vest legal custody in the Department or other authorized agency only if a preponderance of the evidence at the adjudicatory hearing shows that the court has jurisdiction over the child and that continuation of residence in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child and that vesting legal custody with the department or other authorized agency would be in the best interests of the child. I.C. § 16-1619(6). As to Daughter, the magistrate took jurisdiction pursuant to I.C. § 16-1603(2), which provides: (2) If the court has taken jurisdiction over a child under subsection (1) of this section, it may take jurisdiction over another child living or having custodial visitation in the same household without the filing of a separate petition if it finds all of the following: (a) The other child is living or is found within the state; (b) The other child has been exposed to or is at risk of being a victim of abuse, neglect or abandonment; (c) The other child is listed in the petition or amended petition; (d) The parents or legal guardians of the other child have notice as provided in section 16-1611, Idaho Code. (Emphasis added). Since the magistrate took jurisdiction over Son pursuant to I.C. § 16-1603(1), the magistrate was authorized to take jurisdiction over Daughter, who lived in the same home and who witnessed John Doe's abuse of Son.