In re Doe
| Decision Date | 04 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 35637.,35637. |
| Citation | 146 Idaho 759,203 P.3d 689 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Jane DOE, A Child Under 18 Years of Age. John Doe and Jane Doe, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Department of Health and Welfare, Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Wiebe & Fouser, Canyon County Public Defender, Caldwell, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
This appeal arises from a magistrate judge's order granting the petition of Respondent Department of Health & Welfare (the Department) to terminate the parent-child relationship between Appellants John Doe and Jane Doe and their child, I.P. This is an expedited appeal directly from that order. We conclude that the record contains substantial and competent evidence supporting the trial court's findings of abandonment and we therefore affirm.
I.P. was born on July 19, 2005, and Appellants are her biological parents. On July 25, 2006, John Doe's parental rights were terminated as to I.P.'s siblings. On January 30, 2007, Jane Doe voluntarily terminated her parental rights as to I.P.'s siblings. On the morning of October 1, 2006, I.P. was taken to the Mercy Medical Center emergency room by ambulance. Because I.P. was accompanied to the hospital by a babysitter and no parent or guardian subsequently appeared at the hospital, the Nampa Police Department declared I.P. in imminent danger and placed her into the care of the Department. Jane Doe was incarcerated during this time and was not released until October 16, 2006. John Doe's whereabouts were unknown at this time.
On October 3, 2006, at a shelter care hearing, the trial court ordered I.P. to remain in the temporary legal custody of the Department. Jane Doe appeared at the hearing but John Doe did not. On October 26, 2006, at the adjudicatory hearing, the court ordered that I.P. be placed in the legal custody of the Department. Appellants did not attend the hearing. On December 5, 2006, the court approved the case plan developed by the Department with Appellants. Appellants did not attend the hearing.
John Doe was incarcerated from January 2, 2007 to March 26, 2007 on charges of trafficking in methamphetamine and contempt. Jane Doe was incarcerated from January 3, 2007 to February 1, 2007 on charges of trafficking in methamphetamine. She was again incarcerated from April 16, 2007 to May 11, 2007 on charges of possession of a controlled substance and trafficking in methamphetamine.
On April 24, 2007, at a review hearing, the court ordered I.P. to remain in the legal custody of the Department. Appellants did not attend the hearing. On June 5, 2007, Jane Doe was sentenced for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. She received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation. On July 3, 2007, the prosecution filed an allegation that Jane Doe had violated her probation by absconding from supervision. She was arrested on July 25, 2007 and remained in custody until her suspended sentence was imposed in August, 2007. She was released from prison on February 15, 2008.
On July 7, 2007, John Doe was sentenced for possession of methamphetamine. He received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation. He subsequently absconded from supervision and was arrested on August 22, 2007. His suspended sentence was imposed on November 16, 2007.
On October 9, 2007, at a permanency review hearing, the court ordered I.P. to remain in the legal custody of the Department. On November 29, 2007, the Department filed a Verified Petition for Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship. Trial on the Department's petition was held on March 18, 2008, April 22, 2008, and May 13, 2008. On July 24, 2008, the magistrate judge issued a memorandum decision and order in which, applying a standard of clear and convincing evidence, he found that each Appellant had abandoned and neglected I.P. and that termination was in I.P.'s best interest. On August 14, 2008, the court issued separate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding each Appellant and terminating the parent-child relationship. Appellants timely appealed and on September 11, 2008, we granted permissive appeal to this Court.
In an action to terminate parental rights, where the trial court has explicitly determined the case by application of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence. State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 535, 164 P.3d 814, 815 (2007) (citing CASI Found., Inc. v. Doe, 142 Idaho 397, 399, 128 P.3d 934, 936 (2006)). "Substantial competent evidence is `such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 345-46, 144 P.3d 597, 599-600 (2006) (quoting Folks v. Moscow Sch. Dist. No. 281, 129 Idaho 833, 836, 933 P.2d 642, 645 (1997)).
A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a relationship with his or her child. Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758, 760, 53 P.3d 341, 343 (2002) (citing Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978)). This interest is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 842, 172 P.3d 1114, 1117 (2007) (citing In re Bush, 113 Idaho 873, 875, 749 P.2d 492, 494 (1988)). Our legislature also recognizes the importance of maintaining the parent-child relationship: "Implicit in [the Termination of Parent and Child Relationship] act is the philosophy that wherever possible family life should be strengthened and preserved. ..." I.C. § 16-2001. Therefore, the requisites of due process must be met when the Department intervenes to terminate the parent-child relationship. State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 383, 386, 146 P.3d 649, 652 (2006) (citation omitted). Due process requires that the Department prove grounds for terminating a parent-child relationship by clear and convincing evidence. Id. (citing Bush, 113 Idaho at 876, 749 P.2d at 495).
In the instant case, the Department filed a petition for the termination of the parent-child relationship pursuant to I.C. § 16-2005. Idaho Code § 16-2005 permits the Department to petition the court for termination of the parent-child relationship when it is in the child's best interest and any one of the following five factors exist: (a) abandonment, (b) neglect or abuse, (c) lack of a biological relationship between the child and a presumptive parent, (d) mental incapacity of the parent, or (e) where termination is in the best interest of the parent. I.C. § 16-2005. Each statutory ground is an independent basis for termination. State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 842, 172 P.3d 1114, 1117 (2007) (citing In re Aragon, 120 Idaho 606, 611, 818 P.2d 310, 315 (1991)).
The magistrate judge found that the Department proved the following grounds for termination of the parent-child relationship by clear and convincing evidence: (1) neglect as defined in I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b); (2) neglect as defined in I.C. §§ 16-2002(3)(a) and 16-1602(25); and (3) abandonment as defined in I.C. § 16-2002(5). As we conclude that there is substantial and competent evidence supporting the finding that Appellants abandoned I.P., we address only that ground and do not reach the issue of neglect.
Idaho Code § 16-2002(5) defines abandonment and provides in relevant part:
"Abandonment" means the parent has willfully failed to maintain a normal parental relationship including, but not limited to, reasonable support or regular personal contact. Failure of the parent to maintain this relationship without just cause for a period of one (1) year shall constitute prima facie evidence of abandonment under this section ...
Appellants argue that the trial court's findings of abandonment are not supported by substantial and competent evidence. We address the evidence relating to abandonment of I.P. by John Doe and Jane Doe individually.
I.P. was placed into the care of the Department on October 1, 2006. The record indicates that John Doe has not paid any child support for the benefit of I.P. since then. The record also indicates that John Doe was incarcerated during a substantial period of the time that I.P. was in the care of the Department. However, even when John Doe was not incarcerated and thus free to maintain personal contact with I.P., he failed to do so.
John Doe was not incarcerated from October 1, 2006 to January 2, 2007. He had no contact with I.P. during this time. He was again out of custody from March 26, 2007 to August 22, 2007.1 In April of 2007, John Doe contacted the Department and scheduled three visits with I.P., but attended only one of the visits. This was the only in-person contact that John Doe had with I.P. from the time she came into the care of the Department on October 1, 2006 until his parental rights were terminated in July, 2008.
John Doe did not contact I.P. during the times that he was incarcerated and his contact with the Department during this time was extremely limited. John Doe contacted the Department by way of letter twice while incarcerated after November 20, 2007, the second letter being sent after the termination trial had begun. In both letters, John Doe requested that the Department arrange for supervised visits with I.P. and that the Department provide him with photographs of I.P.
John Doe argues that the instant case is similar to Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758, 53 P.3d 341 (2002). In that case, the parent had been incarcerated the entirety of the child's life. Id. at 759, 53 P.3d at 342. Even though the parent was severely restricted in what he could do to establish a relationship with his child, the record indicated that the parent did all he could to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- St. Luke's v. Board of Com's
- State, Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe (In re Doe)
-
Termination the Parent-Child Relationship John Doe v. I
...evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence." In re Doe , 146 Idaho 759, 761, 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). "Substantial competent evidence is ‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclu......
-
In the Matter of Jane Doe v. Iii
...511, 519–20 (1978); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758–59, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1397–98, 71 L.Ed.2d 599, 609–10 (1982). See also In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761, 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). Concordantly, the Idaho Legislature has, in the Child Protective Act, directed “that the state of Idaho sha......