Court Opinion

ID: 9557034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:06:05.806593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:22.249076
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 50712

 In the Interest of: John Doe I, a Child )
 Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.       )
 STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF )
 HEALTH AND WELFARE,                     )           Filed: August 21, 2023
                                         )
         Petitioner-Respondent,          )           Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
                                         )
 v.                                      )           THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                         )           OPINION AND SHALL NOT
 JANE DOE (2023-16),                     )           BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                         )
         Respondent-Appellant.           )
                                         )

       Appeal from Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial
       District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Andrew Ellis, Magistrate.

       Judgment terminating Doe’s parental rights, affirmed.

       Jane Doe, Boise, pro se appellant.

       Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Jessica L. Partridge, Deputy Attorney
       General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge
       Jane Doe appeals from the magistrate court’s judgment terminating her parental rights.
Doe does not specifically allege any error by the magistrate court; rather, Doe generally claims
that the magistrate court erred by terminating her parental rights. Because Doe fails to identify
any specific error by the magistrate court, support her claim with citation to the record, or provide
citation to authority and cogent argument, we decline to address her claim. The judgment
terminating Doe’s parental rights is affirmed.

                                                 1
                                                  I.
                     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Jane Doe is the biological mother of John Doe,1 the minor child in this case. Two days
after the child’s birth, the Department of Health and Welfare (Department) petitioned the
magistrate court to remove the child from Doe’s custody; the motion was granted, and the child
was placed in foster care. Counsel was appointed for Doe. Later, a shelter care hearing was held,
and the Department was granted temporary legal custody of the child. At the adjudicatory hearing,
Doe indicated she no longer wanted counsel and that she intended to represent herself. The
magistrate court ultimately granted the motion.
       A case plan was approved for Doe.2 Approximately four months later, the Department
petitioned to terminate Doe’s parental rights. Following a hearing, the magistrate court concluded
that Doe neglected her child on two different grounds: (1) pursuant to Idaho Code § 16-2005(1)(b),
Doe neglected the child by failing to provide proper parental care and control necessary for the
child’s well-being; and (2) pursuant to I.C. § 16-2005(1)(d), Doe is unable to discharge her parental
responsibilities due to her developmental disabilities, mental health concerns, and lack of
protective capacity. The magistrate court then concluded that terminating Doe’s parental rights is
in the best interests of the child. The magistrate court entered a judgment terminating Doe’s
parental rights to her child. Doe appeals.
                                                  II.
                                             ANALYSIS
       Doe generally alleges the magistrate court erred in terminating her parental rights to the
child. Doe was represented by counsel during some of the underlying proceedings but at an

1
       The magistrate court also terminated the parental rights of the biological father. That
termination is not at issue in this appeal.
2
        Doe’s parental rights to an older child have also been terminated. The concerns in the older
child’s case were based on Doe’s inability to provide basic childcare to an infant, chronic
homelessness, and untreated mental health concerns. In that case, Doe was diagnosed with “severe
and persistent mental illness in the schizophrenia continuum and developmental disability.” Doe
underwent a full-scale psychological evaluation which concluded “Doe’s full-scale IQ of 65 puts
her in the ‘extremely low’ range of cognitive ability making it difficult for her to perform in a
‘wide variety of situations that require thinking and reasoning abilities.’” None of those concerns
that resulted in the termination of Doe’s parental rights to the older child were adequately
addressed before the birth of the minor child in this case. In this case, Doe did not comply with
the recommendation to apply for Adult Developmental Disability services.
                                                  2
adjudicatory hearing, Doe moved to represent herself. The magistrate court warned Doe about the
dangers of self-representation but ultimately granted the motion. Thereafter, Doe represented
herself through the remainder of the trial court proceedings. Doe continues to represent herself on
appeal. As a result of the self-representation, this case suffers from multiple procedural problems.
First, Doe failed to include any transcripts in the appellate record. It is the responsibility of the
appellant to provide a sufficient record to substantiate her claims on appeal. Powell v. Sellers, 130
Idaho 122, 127, 937 P.2d 434, 439 (Ct. App. 1997). In the absence of an adequate record on appeal
to support the appellant’s claims, we will not presume error. Id.
        Second, Doe’s appellate briefs, although accepted for filing, do not comply with the Idaho
Appellate Rules. Idaho Appellate Rule 35 sets out the required contents of an appellant’s brief
and provides that an appellant’s brief “shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect
to the issues presented on appeal, the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and
parts of the transcript and record relied upon.” I.A.R. 35(a)(6). Doe’s appellate briefing fails to
comply with this rule. Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as those litigants represented
by counsel. Michalk v. Michalk, 148 Idaho 224, 229, 220 P.3d 580, 585 (2009). Pro se litigants
are not excused from abiding by procedural rules simply because they are appearing pro se and
may not be aware of the applicable rules. Id. Doe fails to cite to the record in any portion of her
brief. This does not comply with I.A.R. 35(a)(6). Citations to the record are not required in the
statement of the case, I.A.R. 35(a)(3), but are required in the argument section of the brief. I.A.R.
35(a)(6). This Court will not search the record on appeal for error. Idaho Dep't of Health &
Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 103, 113, 244 P.3d 247, 257 (Ct. App. 2010).
        Third, Doe does not challenge any specific ruling of the magistrate court and provides no
legal argument that the magistrate court erred in concluding Doe neglected the child or that the
termination of her parental rights is in the best interests of the child or otherwise violated her due
process rights. Even in an appeal from the termination of parental rights, “we will not consider an
issue which is not supported by cogent argument and authority.” In re Doe (2013-15), 156 Idaho
103, 109, 320 P.3d 1262, 1268 (2014). Here, Doe fails to identify any specific error of the
magistrate court and support her argument with citation to the record or cogent argument.
Accordingly, we will not consider her claim and affirm the magistrate court’s judgment
terminating Doe’s parental rights.

                                                   3
                                               III.
                                        CONCLUSION
       Doe has failed to provide an adequate record for review, has failed to comply with the
requirements of I.A.R. 35, and has failed to present any cogent argument, supported by legal
authority, explaining how the magistrate court erred in its decision to terminate Doe’s parental
rights. Accordingly, the magistrate court’s judgment terminating Doe’s parental rights to the child
is affirmed.
       Chief Judge LORELLO and Judge GRATTON CONCUR.

                                                4