Court Opinion

ID: 9952669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 15:04:49.117967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:29.507203
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 51383

 In the Matter of: John Doe I, A Child          )
 Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.              )
 STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF                  )
 HEALTH AND WELFARE,                            )    Filed: March 20, 2024
                                                )
        Petitioner-Respondent,                  )    Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
                                                )
 v.                                             )    THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )    OPINION AND SHALL NOT
 JANE DOE (2023-46),                            )    BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )
        Defendant-Appellant.                    )
                                                )

       Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Sixth Judicial
       District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Anson L. Call, II, Magistrate.

       Judgment terminating parental rights, affirmed.

       David R. Martinez, Chief Bannock County Public Defender; Jessalyn R. Hopkin,
       Deputy Public Defender, Pocatello, for appellant.

       Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Jason R. Chandler, Deputy Attorney
       General, Pocatello, for respondent.

       Echo Hawk & Olsen, PLLC; Donald A. Sonnefeld, CASA
                ________________________________________________

GRATTON, Chief Judge
       Jane Doe (2023-46) (Doe) appeals from the judgment terminating her parental rights to
John Doe I (Child). We affirm.
                                                I.
                     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Doe is the mother of Child, who was born in 2019. In 2021, after Child was found
wandering alone outside, Child was removed from his parents’ custody and placed in the
temporary care of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (Department). Child’s father
admitted to using drugs that day, Doe admitted to a positive drug test around that time, and drugs

                                                1
and paraphernalia were found in the home.1 The magistrate court held an adjudicatory hearing
and ordered Child to be placed in the legal custody of Department. A case plan was developed
and a few months later the magistrate court returned Child to the parents’ legal custody.
       From September 2021 until December 2022, Child remained under the protective
supervision of the Department, but under the condition that Child reside with Doe and that the
father was not to be present in the home. In the fall of 2022, Doe demonstrated significant
problems in treatment court, maintained unapproved associations, began leaving Child with family
more frequently and for longer periods of time, was not consistently employed, and relapsed.
Subsequently, Doe was indicted on federal drug delivery charges and taken into custody. In
December 2022, Child was returned to the legal custody of Department.
       At the time of the termination hearing, Doe was in federal custody. The magistrate court
determined by clear and convincing evidence that Doe neglected Child, and that termination of her
parental rights is in the best interests of Child. The magistrate court terminated Doe’s parental
rights. Doe appeals.
                                                II.
                                   STANDARD OF REVIEW
       On appeal from a decision terminating parental rights, this Court examines whether the
decision is supported by substantial and competent evidence, which means such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243,
245-46, 220 P.3d 1062, 1064-65 (2009). The appellate court will indulge all reasonable inferences
in support of the trial court’s judgment when reviewing an order that parental rights be terminated.
Id. The Idaho Supreme Court has also said that the substantial evidence test requires a greater
quantum of evidence in cases where the trial court’s finding must be supported by clear and
convincing evidence than in cases where a mere preponderance is required. State v. Doe, 143
Idaho 343, 346, 144 P.3d 597, 600 (2006). Clear and convincing evidence is generally understood
to be evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain. Roe
v. Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191, 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006). Further, the magistrate court’s decision
must be supported by objectively supportable grounds. Doe, 143 Idaho at 346, 144 P.3d at 600.

1
        The magistrate court also terminated the father’s parental rights. The decision to terminate
the father’s parental rights is not at issue in this appeal.
                                                 2
                                                   III.
                                            ANALYSIS
       Doe argues the magistrate court erred by finding clear and convincing evidence that
termination of Doe’s parental rights is in the best interests of Child. Specifically, Doe contends
the magistrate court erred because it failed to recognize all relevant factors such as the legal
relationship being severed with Child’s biological sister or consider alternative placement options.
The State asserts the magistrate court was not required to assess placement following termination
as that falls within the Department’s authority.
       In this case, the magistrate court terminated Doe’s parental rights on the ground of neglect,
Idaho Code § 16-2005(b). On appeal, Doe does not contest the magistrate court’s finding of
neglect. Doe only argues that termination of her parental rights is not in Child’s best interests.
Once a statutory ground for termination has been established, the trial court must next determine
whether it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent-child relationship. In re
Aragon, 120 Idaho 606, 611, 818 P.2d 310, 315 (1991). The best interests analysis is an expansive
analysis with no set list of factors a court must consider. Matter of Doe, 164 Idaho 511, 516, 432
P.3d 60, 65 (2018); see In re Doe, 156 Idaho 103, 111, 320 P.3d 1262, 1270 (2014) (providing
non-exhaustive list of factors a court may consider under the I.C. § 16-2005 best interests analysis).
When determining whether termination is in the child’s best interests, the trial court may consider
the parent’s history with substance abuse, the stability and permanency of the home, the
unemployment of the parent, the financial contribution of the parent to the child’s care after the
child is placed in protective custody, the improvement of the child while in foster care, the parent’s
efforts to improve his or her situation, and the parent’s continuing problems with the law. In re
Doe, 159 Idaho 192, 198, 358 P.3d 77, 83 (2015). Other factors include the parent’s ability to
change his or her conduct to assume parental responsibilities, whether there is a good relationship
between the child and parent, whether the child has improved while in the parent’s care, whether
the child’s needs are being met, and the parent’s ability to provide stability and certainty. Idaho
Dep’t of Health and Welfare v. Doe I (2017-21), 163 Idaho 83, 89, 408 P.3d 81, 87 (2017).
       The magistrate court determined Doe failed to provide for Child’s needs, her actions placed
Child at risk, and she would be unable to discharge her parental responsibilities for a prolonged
indeterminate period due to her incarceration. The magistrate court found the foster family
provided stability, safety, and permanency for Child. Doe argues these factors do not outweigh

                                                    3
the others that the magistrate court failed to consider. Doe contends the magistrate court failed to
consider evidence of how termination would sever the relationship Child had with a biological
sister or that guardianship was an option. Doe asserts Child’s best interests would be better served
through a guardianship because it would provide the same stability for Child as termination, while
providing the same outcome for both of Doe’s children once she is no longer incarcerated. The
magistrate court is not free to ignore relevant evidence that has been admitted. In re Doe, 157
Idaho 765, 770, 339 P.3d 1169, 1174 (2014). However, when making findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the magistrate court is not required to recite every piece of evidence it
considered or relied upon in reaching its decision. Matter of Doe Child, 162 Idaho 69, 77, 394
P.3d 112, 120 (Ct. App. 2017).
        However, Doe has not shown that the magistrate court disregarded evidence of the benefits
of maintaining the family connection or the guardianship option. The parties agree that placement
of a child after termination is under the authority of the Department, not the magistrate court. In
Matter of Doe I, 164 Idaho 883, 889, 436 P.3d 1232, 1238 (2019), the Idaho Supreme Court held:
        [T]he magistrate court did not need to consider where the child was placed in order
        to properly terminate Mother’s parental rights. Even if the magistrate court did
        consider this when it terminated Mother’s parental rights, this Court has made clear
        that “[o]nce the Department has legal custody of a child under the CPA, the
        Department and not the court has the authority to determine where the child should
        live.” Matter of Doe (2017-16), 163 Idaho 565, 570, 416 P.3d 937, 942 (2018)
        (citing In re Doe, 134 Idaho 760, 767, 9 P.3d 1226, 1233 (2000)). In fact, even if
        the Department’s decisions were relevant to the termination of parental rights, those
        decisions are only subject to approval by the magistrate court.
While factors such as a child’s improvement in a foster home or a permanent placement option are
properly considered in the best interests analysis, the magistrate court was not required to consider
the placement of Child in the termination decision. Contrary to Doe’s arguments, the evidence
relative to Child’s placement and the family connection was presented to the magistrate court,
which expressed a comprehensive view of the family and placement circumstances in its best
interests analysis.
        The evidence at trial included Doe’s desire to place Child in a guardianship, the
Department’s view that a guardianship is not in the best interests of Child, and the efforts that had
been made to keep Child in contact with his infant sibling. The magistrate court, in conjunction
with considering the other relevant best interests factors stated:

                                                  4
                Child has been thriving in the care of the foster parents, who are his Father’s
       adopted parents. Foster parents have kept in good contact with Mother, and
       facilitated near daily video calls with Mother while she has been in custody. Child
       has also visited Mother once or twice in person. It appears that the current foster
       parents have the ability to provide for Child’s needs. This foster placement allows
       Child to maintain connections with family members.
Therefore, the record shows that the magistrate court identified the benefits of ongoing family
contact and considered Child’s placement. Even though the magistrate court is not required to
consider placement after termination, the court’s analysis indicates a holistic assessment of Child’s
best interests. Doe’s argument on appeal seeks to have this Court reweigh the evidence presented
at trial. This Court’s review, however, is limited to whether substantial and competent evidence
supports the magistrate court’s decision. Doe, 148 Idaho at 245-46, 220 P.3d at 1064-65. This
Court will not reweigh the evidence. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe (2017-5), 162 Idaho
400, 407, 397 P.3d 1159, 1166 (Ct. App. 2017).
       Substantial and competent evidence supports the magistrate court’s determination, by clear
and convincing evidence that termination of Doe’s parental rights is in the best interests of Child.
Therefore, Doe has failed to show the magistrate court erred in terminating her parental rights.
                                                 IV.
                                         CONCLUSION
       Substantial and competent evidence supports the magistrate court’s determination that
termination of Doe’s parental rights is in Child’s best interests. Accordingly, the judgment
terminating Doe’s parental rights is affirmed.
       Judge HUSKEY and Judge LORELLO CONCUR.

                                                  5