Roe v. Doe
| Decision Date | 23 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 31356.,31356. |
| Citation | 142 Idaho 174,125 P.3d 530 |
| Parties | In the Consolidated Matter of the Termination of the Parental Rights of John Doe and Jane Doe. John ROE and Jane Roe, Petitioners-Respondents, v. John DOE, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Radakovich Law Office, Lewiston, for appellant. Danny J. Radakovich argued.
Jordan P. Smith, Salmon, for respondents.
John Doe (Doe) appeals from a magistrate court decision terminating his parental rights to his minor child, Baby Doe, which was affirmed on appeal to the district court. We hold that there is substantial and competent evidence to affirm the magistrate's decision to terminate Doe's parental rights on the grounds of neglect.
Doe is the father of Baby Doe and son of the Respondents, John Roe and Jane Roe (the Roes), Baby Doe's grandparents. Soon after Baby Doe was born out-of-wedlock, his mother left the area and has not been in contact since. After birth, Baby Doe lived sporadically with his father until he was approximately eighteen months old, at which point his father voluntarily gave him to the Roes to care for him. Baby Doe remained with his grandparents for the next three and one-half years until Doe showed up at the Roe's home and took Baby Doe back to Boise to live with him. After Baby Doe had lived with his father for only two months, the Roes received some anonymous telephone calls concerning Baby Doe's welfare. On July 4, 1998, after becoming concerned that Baby Doe was living in deplorable conditions, the Roes drove to Boise to pick him up and take him back to their ranch in the Pahsimeroi Valley.
In September 1998, the Roes filed a Petition for Guardianship. Based upon the findings that Baby Doe had lived the majority of his life with the Roes, had maintained little contact with his father and while in his father's care had been subjected to mental and physical abuse, guardianship was awarded to the Roes. For the next three years Baby Doe lived with his grandparents, with sporadic visitation and telephone calls from his father.
Then, in March 2002, presumably out of concern for the stability and security of their grandchild's life, the Roes petitioned to terminate Doe's parental rights and to adopt Baby Doe. The matter went to trial and at the conclusion of the trial, the magistrate judge entered detailed findings of fact in which he outlined the first five and one-half years of Baby Doe's life and the minimal contact Baby Doe had had with his father from the time he was eighteen months old.
Ultimately, the magistrate judge terminated Doe's parental rights on grounds of neglect, abandonment, abuse and a finding that termination would be in both the child's and the father's best interests. The judge also entered an order permitting the Roes to adopt Baby Doe. Doe appealed to the district court, which affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate the father's parental rights. The district court found there was substantial and competent evidence to support the findings of neglect and abandonment, but not as to the grounds of abuse or that termination was in the father's best interests. Doe appeals to this Court the determinations regarding neglect and abandonment. The district judge's decisions regarding abuse and the father's best interests as grounds for termination have not been raised on appeal and are not before us.
When reviewing a decision rendered by the district court in its appellate capacity, this Court considers the record before the magistrate court independently of the district court's determination, giving due regard to the district court's analysis. Roe Family Servs. v. Doe, 139 Idaho 930, 934, 88 P.3d 749, 753 (2004); I.R.C.P. 83(a). "In an action to terminate parental rights, `where a clear and convincing standard has been noted explicitly and applied by the trial court, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence.'" Roe Family Servs., 139 Idaho at 934, 88 P.3d at 753. "Findings are competent, so long as they are supported by substantial, albeit possibly, conflicting, evidence." Roberts v. Roberts, 138 Idaho 401, 405, 64 P.3d 327, 331 (2003) (citing Lickley v. Max Herbold, Inc., 133 Idaho 209, 211, 984 P.2d 697, 699 (1999)). Only clearly erroneous findings are overturned, which means a reasonable person would not have relied on them in concluding as the fact finder did. Opportunity, L.L.C. v. Ossewarde, 136 Idaho 602, 605, 38 P.3d 1258, 1261 (2002). "[T]his Court will indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's judgment when reviewing an order that parental rights be terminated." Doe I v. Doe, 138 Idaho 893, 900, 71 P.3d 1040, 1047 (2003) (quotations omitted).
First, Doe argues he should be entitled to a new trial because the magistrate judge's decision was, in part, a consequence of improper bias. In his findings, the magistrate judge made some specific observations about the father's inappropriate responses and facial expressions throughout the trial, particularly at times when opposing witnesses were testifying. However, to warrant the disqualification of a judge for alleged bias, the bias must either be based on information "other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case" or be "of such a nature and character that it would make it impossible for the litigant to get a fair trial." Desfosses v. Desfosses, 120 Idaho 27, 29, 813 P.2d 366, 368 (Ct.App.1991) (quoting United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1710, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 793 (1966)). Doe's argument that the trial court was biased rests on the judge's findings as to the father's demeanor during trial. The trial court's findings of fact contain observations about Doe's inappropriate reactions to the Roes' testimony or his evident pleasure at their discomfort or pain. Nothing in the trial court's findings or in Doe's arguments demonstrates any extra-judicial influences or that the judge based his decision on anything other than what he learned during trial. Further, a review of the transcript reveals there was no unfairness in the proceedings, nor that a fair trial was impossible. In fact, the magistrate judge was evenhanded in cautioning both parties at various times to keep their testimony free of sarcasm or anger.
One of the primary roles of a trial judge is to assess the credibility of the witnesses:
The finder of fact has the opportunity to observe witnesses' demeanor, to assess their credibility, to detect prejudice or motive and to judge the character of the parties. In a parental-termination case, this is immensely important. A cold record of the trial does not tell the whole story. An independent review by [this Court] could not take into account the trial court's superior view of the entire situation.
Doe v. Roe, 133 Idaho 805, 809, 992 P.2d 1205, 1209 (1999) (quotations omitted); See also Doe v. Dep't of Health and Welfare, Human Servs. Div., 141 Idaho 511, 515, 112 P.3d 799, 803 (2005) (). Here, the judge was appropriately remarking on the father's demeanor, which then supported the judge's determination that the father's testimony lacked credibility.
Neglect is a ground for parental termination and was defined by the statute in effect at the time of this proceeding as "a situation in which the child lacks parental care necessary for his [or her] health, morals and well-being." I.C. § 16-2005(b).1 The question of neglect is one of fact. Thompson v. Thompson, 110 Idaho 93, 94, 714 P.2d 62, 63 (Ct.App.1986). Doe asserts the magistrate judge's finding of neglect is not supported by substantial and competent evidence.
Doe argues that the magistrate judge erred in considering as a part of the findings, conduct that occurred prior to the Roes' appointment as guardians, asserting that this evidence had already been considered as a basis for the guardianship and should not be used now to justify termination. However, the magistrate judge made clear in the findings that while conduct prior to the guardianship could support termination, he was deliberately not considering it and was basing his finding of neglect exclusively on Doe's conduct since the guardianship order. Moreover, past character evidence may be relevant in determining future behavior. In Interest of Dayley, 112 Idaho 522, 525, 733 P.2d 743, 746 (1987). No good reason has been presented here to require the trial court to limit consideration of relevant evidence about Doe's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. John Doe (In re I)
- Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Jane (2013-15) Doe (In re Termination of the Parental Rights of Jane (2013-15) Doe)
- State v. Doe (In re Doe)
-
State v. Doe (In re Doe)
...1209 (1999)). "Findings are competent, so long as they are supported by substantial, albeit possibly, conflicting, evidence." Roe v. Doe, 142 Idaho 174, 177, 125 P.3d 530, 533 (2005) (quoting Roberts v. Roberts, 138 Idaho 401, 405, 64 P.3d 327, 331 (2003)). "Substantial, competent evidence ......