Opinion ID: 874106
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The magistrate judge's findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence.

Text: Michell cites In re Doe, 142 Idaho 594, 130 P.3d 1132 (2006), for the rule that a trial court may not arbitrarily or capriciously disregard the positive or uncontradicted testimony of a credible witness, and the trial court must accept such testimony as true unless the testimony was impeached, inherently improbable or rendered improbable by facts and circumstances disclosed at trial. Dr. McGuffey testified at trial that, while there is always a concern of negative side effects when taking medication, Michell has been on most of her medications for over two years and has been stabilized on them and doing quite well. Dr. McGuffey testified that she believes, from her personal observation, that Michell is a competent mother who is able to drive and work with the children. In the Memorandum Decision and Order, the magistrate judge acknowledged Dr. McGuffey's testimony but found the conflicting evidence to be more compelling. On cross-examination, Dr. McGuffey acknowledged that her observations of Michell were limited to seeing Michell in her waiting room and office. On the first day of trial, upon deciding to continue the trial to a second day in order for Michell to provide more information concerning her medication use, the magistrate judge advised Michell and her attorney that it would be in Michell's interest to find an independent doctor to assess Michell and testify. The magistrate judge explained: I think it would be in your best interest to go to an independent doctor who's never dealt with you before and take your sheet of all the stuff that you're taking in to them and have them sit down and go through it with you because it may very well be that they'll have a different perspective. I worry about if you have Dr. McGuffey do it, I'm worried that she'll feel defensive about it because there's an inquiry whereas if you get a neutral person, you may find that there's some things that they can do differently. I'm going to leave that up to you, Mr. Leroy [as Michell's attorney]. Certainly I'll give weight to it differently depending on who's telling me the information. Nevertheless, Michell called Dr. McGuffey, her primary physician who writes some of her prescriptions, to testify. Michell also submitted a letter from one of Dr. McGuffey's partners at Black Canyon Family Medicine which states that Michell's medical therapy is necessary and appropriate and that her prescribed medications are not excessive and should in no way make her unable to care for children. Jimmy submitted the letter of Dr. A. Patricia Burgess. Dr. Burgess did not see Michell or review her medical records, but she reviewed the list of medications that Michell takes and offered the following observations: (1) the amount of medications meets the criteria for polypharmacy, which results in increased risk of drug interactions and side effects; (2) many medications on the list are sedating or mood-altering, and she would have concerns about Michell operating heavy machinery and being the only adult in the household due to a risk of memory impairment and lack of awareness of emergency signals; and (3) several of the medications interact with each other, which could cause further impairment. Additionally, Jimmy testified that Michell blows up over little things and a lot times at night she basically passes out, both of which he attributes to her medication use. Jimmy also testified that a doctor who assessed Michell's stomach problems told them that she had polypharmacy which basically is too much medication which does not cooperate with each other and causes her to get nauseous. Jimmy testified as well to Michell's bad judgment, specifically discussing instances where she trimmed the interest off of the children's savings accounts, stating he can only relate this back to the medication and the bad judgment it causes. Jimmy submitted photos from a portion of their home which was in Michell's control, which shows many bottles of what he testified to be Michell's medications and which appear to be lying out amongst piles of disorganized clutter. When we review the record to determine whether substantial evidence exists we are precluded from substituting our judgment for that of the fact finder as to the credibility of witnesses, the weight of testimony and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. State v. Bettwieser, 143 Idaho 582, 588, 149 P.3d 857, 863 (Ct.App.2006). [T]his Court will not reweigh conflicting evidence or attempt to judge the credibility of witnesses on appeal. In re Doe, 147 Idaho 243, 254, 207 P.3d 974, 985 (2009). In light of the foregoing evidence from the record, we hold that there is substantial evidence to support the magistrate judge's finding that Michell's use of medications may impair her ability to provide proper parental care.