John Doe v. Jane Doe (In re Jane Doe)
| Decision Date | 04 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 48479 & 48499 |
| Citation | 169 Idaho 170,492 P.3d 1129 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: Jane DOE II, a Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. John Doe I and Jane Doe I, Husband and Wife, Petitioners-Respondents, v. Jane Doe (2020-49), Respondent-Appellant. In the Matter of: Jane Doe II, a Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. John Doe I and Jane Doe I, Husband and Wife, Petitioners-Respondents, v. John Doe (2020-52), Respondent-Appellant. |
Rocky L. Wixom, Office of the Public Defender, Idaho Falls, for appellant Mother.
Neal S. Randall, Office of Conflict Counsel, Bonneville County Public Defender, Idaho Falls, for appellant Father.
Kevin B. Homer, Idaho Falls, for respondents Jane Doe I and John Doe I.
This case presents a dilemma as old as that presented to Solomon: Who should be entrusted to parent a child? This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of Jane Doe (Mother) and John Doe (Father), a married couple who are the biological parents of E.W. (Child). Mother and Father were both incarcerated from 2015 until 2020. Mother gave birth to Child while incarcerated and asked her friend Jane Doe I (Guardian Mother) and her husband John Doe I (Guardian Father) (collectively, "Guardians") to care for Child until Mother was released. Guardians have raised Child since her birth and presently act as legal guardians for her. Guardians filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father and to adopt Child.
A termination trial was held by the magistrate court, after which the magistrate court terminated the parental rights of both Mother and Father. The magistrate court found that Mother had neglected Child and was unable to discharge her parental responsibilities. The magistrate court further found that Father had abandoned and neglected Child and was also unable to discharge his parental responsibilities. The magistrate court then granted Guardian's petition for adoption. For the reasons set out below, we reverse the magistrate court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
Mother and Father were both convicted in federal court of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in 2015. Both Mother and Father served their sentences in different federal penal facilities in Texas. While incarcerated, Mother gave birth to Child on September 2, 2015. Mother arranged to have her friend, Guardian Mother, care for Child while Mother served the remainder of her sentence. Guardians agreed to care for Child temporarily after Mother assured them that her incarceration would be for approximately five months. Upon giving birth, Mother spent one hour with Child before Child was placed in the custody of Guardians. Guardians are the legal guardians of Child, and she has lived in their household continuously since her birth.
Mother and Father were both incarcerated for approximately five years. During her incarceration, Mother made various attempts to contact Child through Guardian Mother via email and letters. Mother consistently asked how Child was doing and if Guardian Mother could provide photos of her. Mother also tried to arrange video visits with Child. Guardian Mother would sometimes oblige and offer status updates or send photos of Child, but refused the majority of Mother's requests for photos and visitation by video. Although Mother communicated with Father daily while incarcerated, Father made no similar attempts to contact Child during his incarceration and has never met Child in person. While incarcerated, neither Mother nor Father contributed financially to Child's upbringing by Guardians. After her release, Mother continued to seek updates on Child as well as in-person contact. Guardians allowed Mother to visit Child one time in the presence of other family members. Father was not present for this visit.
Mother was released from custody in March 2020. Father was released a few months before the termination trial began on September 10, 2020. At that time, both Mother and Father faced approximately three years of federal supervision upon their release. They also owed restitution to their victims of approximately $1.5 million. In addition, prior to their incarceration, Mother and Father had their parental rights to their six older children terminated in the state of Florida. The reason for this termination was because Mother and Father had fled to the Bahamas with their children to evade arrest by federal authorities after they were indicted on wire fraud charges. Mother and Father's six older children were subsequently adopted by Mother's siblings.
While Mother and Father were incarcerated, Guardians filed a Verified Petition for Termination of Parent and Child Relationship and for Adoption on December 27, 2017, in Bonneville County, Idaho.1 The Petition alleged that the parental rights of Mother and Father should be terminated "pursuant to Idaho Code § 16-2001, et seq. , including, but not limited to, Idaho Code § 16-2005(1)(d), (1)(e), (3) and/or (4)." The Petition made no factual allegations as to why Mother's and Father's parental rights should be terminated.
Pursuant to Idaho Code section 16-1507(3), the magistrate court appointed counsel for Mother and Father and ordered the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) to conduct an investigation to determine the veracity of the allegations contained in the petition on December 29, 2017. Thereafter, Mother requested payment for costs associated with retaining an expert witness to "investigate potential witnesses, evidence, and defenses," arguing that without an expert, Mother's ability to prepare a defense would be limited. Mother argued that because the magistrate court had appointed a public defender to represent her, she was "entitled to request funds for trial preparation from the court." Mother argued that although a public defender typically represents individuals facing criminal charges, the termination of parental rights also involves a fundamental right: the right to parent. Mother argued that because the two situations are analogous, she should be able to obtain the payment of expert witness fees in order to respond to the petition seeking termination of her parental rights.
In response, Guardians argued that there is no right to the payment of expert witness fees in a case seeking the termination of parental rights. Guardians also argued that the denial of expert witness fees would not prejudice Mother because the IDHW would be conducting its own independent investigation, purportedly free from any bias toward either party. The magistrate court denied Mother's motion for funds to retain an expert, finding that Mother's "cited authority applies to rights of a defendant in a criminal law case, not in a civil parental rights termination matter." The magistrate court continued, "the record before the [c]ourt does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that [Mother's] expert's opinion on the long-term emotional effects that termination will have on [Child] or that an assessment of her connection to [Guardians] will materially assist [Mother] in the preparation of her defense."
Guardians then filed a motion for an investigation by the Division of Family and Community Services of the IDHW to investigate and submit a report based on Mother's and Father's decision to contest the termination of their parental rights. Mother responded to the Verified Petition on April 30, 2019, arguing that termination should not occur because the agreement with Guardians to care for Child was only meant to be temporary and termination would not be in Child's best interest. The magistrate court continued the trial date in order to accommodate Mother's release from prison.
After Mother's and Father's release and return to Twin Falls, Idaho, the parties attempted mediation, which was unsuccessful. A two-day bench trial began on September 10, 2020. At the conclusion of the trial, Guardians submitted their proposed findingsof fact and conclusions of law along with their post-trial memorandum. Mother also submitted proposed findings and conclusions, asserting that Guardians’ petition had not provided her with sufficient notice of the specific conduct for which Guardians were seeking termination of Mother's parental rights. Mother argued that Guardians’ petition failed to allege a "short and plain statement of the facts" justifying termination.
The magistrate court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on October 30, 2020, granting Guardians’ petition for termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights. The magistrate court also granted Guardians’ request to adopt Child. The magistrate court found that "the best interest of the minor child will be promoted and protected if the parental relationship between her and [Mother and Father] is terminated and she is adopted by [Guardians.]" Regarding Mother's claim that she was not sufficiently notified by the Verified Petition of the grounds that were being pursued to terminate her parental rights, the magistrate court found that Mother and Father had sufficient notice. The magistrate court found that because Guardians had pleaded that termination should be granted "pursuant to Idaho Code section 16-2001 et seq. , ‘including but not limited to ’ Idaho Code section 16-2005(1)(d), (1)(e), (3), and/or (4)," "[Mother and Father] were on notice that all of the grounds and circumstances contemplated by Idaho Code § 16-2005 would be subject to proof at trial and decision by the court and any suggestion by [Mother and Father] that the court is or may be limited in its review of Idaho Code § 16-2005 is not well taken." (Emphasis in original.)
In its Conclusions of Law, the magistrate court first found that Idaho Code section 16-2005(1)(e) was inapplicable to Mother and Father because they were no longer incarcerated, nor was there any...
To continue reading
Request your trial