Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. John (2013-17) Doe (In re Termination of the Parental Rights of John (2013-17) Doe)
Decision Date | 07 February 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 41233.,41233. |
Citation | 155 Idaho 896,318 P.3d 886 |
Parties | In the Matter of the TERMINATION OF the PARENTAL RIGHTS OF John (2013–17) DOE. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Petitioner–Respondent, v. John (2013–17) Doe, Respondent–Appellant. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Bonneville County Public Defender's Office, Idaho Falls, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
ON THE BRIEFS
This appeal arises from a termination of parental rights based on a Consent in Abeyance (Consent). The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) filed a Petition for the Termination of Parental Rights after a prolonged child protection proceeding involving John Doe and his two children, S.M. and C.M. In the Consent, Doe agreed to the conditional termination of his parental rights in exchange for the magistrate court vacating the hearing set on the termination petition and having his children returned to his care on an extended home visit. Doe was subsequently arrested and the magistrate court entered a judgment terminating Doe's parental rights to both children on the grounds that Doe had signed the Consent and failed to substantially comply with its terms. Doe timely appealed. We vacate the judgment.
Doe is the father of two children, S.M., born in 2008, whose mother is Jane Doe I, and C.M., born in 2011, whose mother is Jane Doe II. The termination action arises from a child protection case that began in regard to S.M. in May 2010, at which time S.M. was placed under the protective supervision of IDHW. S.M. lived in and out of foster care until July 2011, at which time the court authorized an extended home visit for S.M. in the home of Doe and Jane Doe II. In April 2012, Doe and Jane Doe II were arrested for probation violations. Both S.M. and C.M. were removed from the home and both children alternated between living with Doe and Jane Doe II and foster care placements through January of 2013.
IDHW filed a Petition to Terminate the Parental Rights of Doe as to both S.M. and C.M. on January 9, 2013, alleging abandonment, neglect, and abuse. Petitions to terminate parental rights were also filed against Jane Doe I and II, however, neither is a party to this appeal.
The magistrate court directed the parties to engage in a settlement conference. As a result of negotiations, on March 18, 2013, Doe appeared before the magistrate judge and executed the Consent. The Consent provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
(Emphasis added).
Based upon Doe's execution of the Consent, the court vacated the scheduled termination trial and granted Doe and Jane Doe II a 90 day home visit with S.M. and C.M. Approximately three weeks later, Doe was arrested for alleged violations of his probation. The children were removed from the home on April 10, 2013. IDHW filed its Motion to Implement Consents in Abeyance on April 16, 2013. A hearing on IDHW's motion began on May 13, 2013, but was not completed.
Following the hearing, Doe's attorney sought to withdraw from the case. On June 12, 2013, the court granted Doe's attorney's Motion to Withdraw.1 On July 3, 2013, twenty-one days after the order permitting Doe's attorney to withdraw, the magistrate court entered a final judgment in favor of IDHW, terminating Doe's parental right to his children. In a companion order, the court simply stated that the termination of Doe's parental rights was "justified on the grounds that said father did sign a consent in abeyance, and due to his failure to substantially comply with the requirements set forth therein, and due to his failure to comply with Rule 11(b)(3) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, the consent was implemented...."
In general, this Court reviews a termination of parental rights "to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence" to support the termination. Doe v. Doe, 149 Idaho 392, 395, 234 P.3d 716, 719 (2010) (quoting Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758, 760, 53 P.3d 341, 343 (2002) ). However, whether a magistrate court correctly applied the law to the facts "is a question of law and is subject to free review by this Court." In re Baby Boy Doe, 127 Idaho 452, 456, 902 P.2d 477, 481 (1995).
Doe argues termination of parental rights based on the Consent was improper as I.C. § 16–2005 does not authorize conditional consents to the termination of parental rights or consents that are held in abeyance. IDHW argues that although the Consent Doe signed was not identical to the form provided in I.C. § 16–2005(4), the additional language added by the parties was valid and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nelson v. Evans
...‘custody, care and control’ of their children; this right is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." In re Termination of Parental Rts. of Doe , 155 Idaho 896, 902, 318 P.3d 886, 892 (2014). Because Idaho Code section 32-719 seemingly allows grandparents to seek visitation over the objectio......
-
Termination the Parent-Child Relationship John Doe v. I
...to involuntarily terminate parental rights: section 16-2005(1)(d) and section 16-2005(3). In re Termination of Parental Rights of Doe (2013-17) , 155 Idaho 896, 901–02, 318 P.3d 886, 891–92 (2014) ; Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe I , 147 Idaho 314, 319, 208 P.3d 296, 301 (2009). Under bot......
-
Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (In re Termination the Parental Rights Jane Doe)
...in March 2013. John appealed the judgment, which was reversed and the matter wasremanded for further proceedings. See In re Doe, 155 Idaho 896, 318 P.3d 886 (2014). The Idaho Supreme Court held that Idaho law does not allow for conditional consents to termination of parental rights and that......
-
Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. John Doe (In re Termination the Parental Rights John Doe)
...in March 2013. John appealed the judgment, which was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. See In re Doe, 155 Idaho 896, 318 P.3d 886 (2014). The Idaho Supreme Court held that Idaho law does not allow for conditional consents to termination of parental rights and tha......