Doe v. Doe (In re Doe)
| Decision Date | 12 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 49400 |
| Parties | In the Matter of: Jane Doe II, a Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. v. JANE DOE (2022-03), Respondent-Appellant. JANE DOE I, Petitioner-Respondent, |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. James D. Stow, Magistrate.
Judgment of termination of parental rights, affirmed.
Anne C. Taylor, Kootenai County Public Defender; Jonathan L.P. Meier, Deputy Public Defender, Coeur d'Alene, for appellant.
Hagerty Law; Stacia C. Hagerty, Coeur d'Alene, for respondent.
Jane Doe (Mother) appeals from the magistrate court's order terminating her parental rights to her child (M.K.). Mother alleges that there was not substantial and competent evidence to support the findings that she neglected and abandoned the child. We affirm.
Jane Doe I (Grandmother), the maternal grandmother of M.K., filed a petition for the termination of Mother's parental rights and the adoption of M.K.[1] Grandmother claimed that Mother had abandoned and neglected M.K. A hearing on the petition was held at which Grandmother, Mother, and the guardian ad litem testified. The testimony presented at the hearing established the following facts.
Soon after the birth of M.K. in May 2012, Grandmother offered to take care of M.K. so Mother could focus on addressing legal concerns. Since then, M.K. has solely been in Grandmother's care. In August 2012, Mother signed short-term guardianship papers for Grandmother to have custody of M.K. while Mother potentially served jail time. In the end, Mother did not spend any significant amount of time in jail. Until March 2013, there was minimal coordinated contact between M.K., Grandmother, and Mother. The last time Mother had contact with M.K was in March 2013.
During May 2013, Grandmother filed for nonparental custody of M.K in the state of Washington, Spokane County. Mother participated in the proceedings. Nonparental custody was granted to Grandmother in October 2014. The court in Spokane County found Mother had willfully abandoned and neglected M.K. and set out requirements for Mother to complete within one year in order to re-engage with the child. If Mother failed to complete the tasks within one year, her contact with M.K. would end. The Idaho magistrate court noted the requirements were daunting, but Mother was engaged with child protective services in Washington at the time, which would have provided her access to services and the ability to accomplish these tasks. At the termination trial, Mother failed to provide credible evidence to confirm she engaged in various portions of the re-engagement requirements. In addition, the Washington court never informed Grandmother that Mother had completed the tasks required for visitation all of which indicates that Mother failed to do so.
Mother's next opportunity to address custody of M.K. occurred in 2017 when Grandmother filed for guardianship in the state of Idaho. Mother received notice of the proceeding and requested a last minute continuance. The continuance was granted, but Mother failed to appear at the reset hearing. The guardianship was granted in 2019.
Grandmother then petitioned for termination and adoption in March 2020. An amended petition was filed in May 2020. The magistrate court conducted a trial in September 2021; all parties were present. The court made written factual findings and determined Mother had abandoned and neglected M.K., and that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of M.K. Mother timely appeals.
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. In re 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. In re Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191, 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006). Further, the magistrate's decision must be supported by objectively supportable grounds. In re Doe, 143 Idaho at 346, 144 P.3d at 600.
Mother argues the magistrate court erred because there was not clear and convincing evidence to show that Mother abandoned and neglected M.K. Mother also argues that the termination of her parental rights is not in the best interests of M.K.
A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a relationship with his or her child. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758, 760, 53 P.3d 341, 343 (2002). This interest is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 842, 172 P.3d 1114, 1117 (2007). Implicit in the Termination of Parent and Child Relationship Act is the philosophy that, wherever possible, family life should be strengthened and preserved. Idaho Code § 16-2001(2). Therefore, the requisites of due process must be met when terminating the parent-child relationship. State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 383, 386, 146 P.3d 649, 652 (2006). Due process requires that the grounds for terminating a parent-child relationship be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Because a fundamental liberty interest is at stake, the United States Supreme Court has determined that a court may terminate a parent-child relationship only if that decision is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769 (1982); see also I.C. § 16-2009; In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761-62, 203 P.3d 689, 691-92 (2009); Doe, 143 Idaho at 386, 146 P.3d at 652.
Idaho Code § 16-2005 permits a party 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) the parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities for a prolonged period that will be injurious to the health, morals, or well-being of the child; or (e) the parent is incarcerated and will remain incarcerated for a substantial period of time. Each statutory ground is an independent basis for termination. Doe, 144 Idaho at 842, 172 P.3d at 1117.
Before delving into the findings of abandonment and neglect, the magistrate court provided credibility determinations as to each individual that testified. It is the province of the trial court to weigh conflicting evidence and to judge the credibility of witnesses. In re Doe, 152 Idaho 910, 913, 277 P.3d 357, 360 (2012). The magistrate court did not find Mother particularly credible:
Her testimony could be fairly described as "all over the place" and at times odd. At one point she indicated she didn't want to answer the question of how many children she had. At another she cryptically answered that she or she and her physician "have their reasons" as to why she won't drug test despite her drug use history. In short, this Court found it difficult to take [Mother's] testimony at face value.
Mother failed to provide any evidence outside of her testimony. On the other hand, the magistrate court found that Grandmother was credible. Grandmother's recitation of dates was less than perfect but her general testimony was credible and supported by other evidence.
The magistrate court's determination that Mother abandoned M.K. is supported by substantial and competent evidence. Pursuant to I.C. § 16-2002(5), abandonment occurs when the parent has willfully failed to maintain a normal parental relationship including, but not limited to, reasonable support or regular personal contact. The word "or" is a disjunctive particle used to express an alternative and, thus, the willful failure to maintain a normal parental relationship can be based upon either the failure to pay reasonable support, or the failure to have regular personal contact, or some other failure. Doe I v. Doe II, 148 Idaho 713, 715, 228 P.3d 980, 982 (2010).
When a parent fails to maintain a normal parental relationship without just cause for a period of one year, prima facie evidence of abandonment exists; provided, however, where termination is sought by a grandparent seeking to adopt the child, the willful failure of the parent to maintain a normal parental relationship without just cause for six (6) months shall constitute prima facie evidence of abandonment. I.C. § 16-2002(5). There is no universal standard for what constitutes a normal parental relationship, and whether such a relationship exists depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Doe v. Doe, 150 Idaho 46, 50, 244 P.3d 190, 194 (2010). The petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that the parent lacks a normal parental relationship with the child and that there is no just cause for the failure to maintain such a relationship. Id. If the petitioner is able to meet this burden, the parent then has the burden of production to present evidence of just cause. Id. If the magistrate court...
To continue reading
Request your trial