State v. Doe (In re Doe)

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: LORELLO, JUDGE
• Docket Number: 51327
• Decision Date: 29 February 2024
• Citation: State v. Doe (In re Doe), 51327 (Idaho App. Feb 29, 2024)
• Parties: In the Matter of John Doe I, A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. v. JANE DOE (2023-43), Respondent-Appellant. STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &WELFARE, Petitioner-Respondent,

1

In the Matter of John Doe I, A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.

STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &WELFARE, Petitioner-Respondent, v. JANE DOE (2023-43), Respondent-Appellant.

No. 51327

Court of Appeals of Idaho

February 29, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon Andrew Ellis, Magistrate.

Judgment terminating parental rights, affirmed.

Paul R. Taber, III, Boise, for appellant.

Hon Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Briana Allen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

LORELLO, JUDGE

Jane Doe (2023-43) appeals from the judgment terminating her parental rights. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Doe is the mother of the minor child involved in this action. The child was born in 2018 and is the youngest of Doe's five children, three of whom were in Doe's custody at the time these proceedings began. Doe has a history of substance abuse and mental health concerns which have been contributing factors to the removal of her older children into foster care in 2006 and 2011 respectively. In December 2021, one of the child's older siblings, Z.H., reported to school personnel and law enforcement that Doe became angry with Z.H and forcibly pushed him into a wall as he was getting ready for school that morning. Law enforcement made the decision to remove the child and Z.H. and place them in foster care^1] Thereafter, the magistrate court held a shelter care hearing and awarded temporary legal custody to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.

In February 2022, the magistrate court approved a case plan for Doe with a permanency goal of continued efforts toward reunification with the child. The magistrate court subsequently held periodic status and review hearings. However, in March 2023, Doe was arrested for two counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, and one count of petit theft. Doe was arrested again in June 2023 for one count of possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Ultimately, the criminal cases were consolidated and resolved when Doe pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance and was accepted into Ada County Drug Court.

In June 2023, the magistrate court held a permanency hearing and a six-month review. Following the hearing, the magistrate court approved a permanency goal of termination of parental rights and subsequent adoption for the child. A month later, the Department filed a petition seeking termination of Doe's parental rights. In October 2023, a trial on the Department's petition was held. After finding by clear and convincing evidence that Doe neglected the child and that termination of her parental rights is in the child's best interests, the magistrate court terminated Doe's parental rights^2] Doe appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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. State v. 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. Roe v. Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191, 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006). Further, the trial court's decision must be supported by objectively supportable grounds. Doe, 143 Idaho at 346, 144 P.3d at 600.

III. ANALYSIS

Doe challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the magistrate court's findings that she neglected the child and that termination of her parental rights is in the child's best interests. The Department responds that substantial and competent evidence supports the magistrate court's termination decision. We affirm the termination of Doe's parental rights.

A. Statutory Basis for Termination

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. I.C. § 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; Doe v. Dep't of Health &Welfare, 146 Idaho 759, 761-62, 203 P.3d 689, 691-92 (2009); Doe, 143 Idaho at 386, 146 P.3d at 652. Idaho Code Section 16-2005 permits a party to petition the court for termination of the parent-child relationship when it is in the child's best interests 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.

In this case, the magistrate court terminated Doe's parental rights after determining that the Department had proven both counts of neglect alleged in the termination petition. Specifically, the magistrate court found that Doe's neglect of the child stemmed from both Doe's noncompliance with the tasks of her case plan and her inability to meet the child's basic needs. On appeal, Doe challenges both of these findings.

1. Noncompliance with case plan tasks

Neglect exists where the parent has failed to comply with the court's orders or the case plan in a Child Protective Act case and the Department has had temporary or legal custody of the child for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months and reunification has not been accomplished by the last day of the fifteenth month in which the child has been in the temporary or legal custody of the Department. I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b). The magistrate court found that Doe neglected the child because Doe failed to comply with two of the five tasks in her case plan--specifically, Task 1B, which required parenting education, and Task 1E, which required Doe to engage in substance abuse and mental health treatment. With regard to Task 1B, the magistrate court found that Doe did not participate in the "in-home parenting education and support" she was ordered to complete. The magistrate court noted that Doe's explanation at trial for not participating in this service was her belief that "this task was geared toward providing her skills to reunify with [Z.H.]" and "did not think this applicable to her parenting" of the child in this case.

With regard to Task 1E, the magistrate court found that Doe failed to complete a substance abuse treatment program. The magistrate court specifically noted five instances where Doe began, but ultimately failed to complete, treatment programs. Doe first began treatment at Human Supports of Idaho on April 4, 2022, but left the program by April 28, 2022. In June 2022, Doe started services at Ascent Behavioral Health. However, due to Doe's inconsistent participation, ongoing positive urinalysis tests for methamphetamine, and her inability to communicate effectively with Ascent staff, Doe was discharged from the program in October 2022. Following her discharge from Ascent, Doe began substance abuse treatment at Trivium Life Service for a week until she experienced a panic attack at the facility. The magistrate court also noted that, in September 2022, Doe sought admission to Intermountain Hospital for opioid detoxification due to daily fentanyl use. When Doe was informed she could not be admitted, the magistrate court found that Doe made suicidal statements and was then involuntarily committed for six days. Doe testified she participated in substance abuse treatment and parenting education while at Intermountain Hospital, but the magistrate court found that it was unclear if that treatment occurred during the six days she was admitted or if she engaged in an after-care program. Ultimately, the magistrate court found "it does not appear Doe received any substance abuse treatment between October 2022 and her admission into Drug Court in August 2023."

With regard to mental health treatment, the magistrate court noted Doe completed a Comprehensive Diagnostic Assessment (CDA) prior to her substance abuse treatment episodes. The...