State v. Doe (In re Doe)

• Decision Date: 28 April 2022
• Docket Number: 49399
• Parties: In the Interest of: John Doe I, A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. v. JANE DOE (2022-02), Respondent-Appellant. STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Petitioner-Respondent,
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

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

STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Petitioner-Respondent, v. JANE DOE (2022-02), Respondent-Appellant.

No. 49399

Court of Appeals of Idaho

April 28, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez Perce County. Hon. Victoria Olds, Magistrate.

Judgment terminating parental rights, affirmed.

Joanna M. McFarland, Lewiston, for appellant.

Hon Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Floyd L. Swanton Jr. Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Floyd L Swanton Jr., argued.

Paige M. Nolta, Lewiston, guardian ad litem.

BRAILSFORD, JUDGE

Jane Doe (Mother) appeals from the magistrate court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor child, J.D Mother argues the court erred by concluding she neglected J.D. and that the termination of her parental rights is in J.D.'s best interests. She also challenges several orders the court entered during the underlying Child Protective Act (CPA) case before the court terminated her parental rights. We affirm the judgment terminating Mother's parental rights but decline to consider Mother's appellate challenges to the court's orders entered in the underlying CPA case.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 2014, Mother gave birth to J.D.^[1] At that time, Mother was in Lewiston; unmarried; and in a relationship with a sex offender, who was not J.D.'s father.^[2] Shortly after J.D.'s birth, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare opened a voluntary case plan for Mother based on concerns about her mental health, inappropriate housing, and inability to care for J.D. That plan remained in place until about January 2015.

According to Mother's testimony at the termination hearing, when J.D. was "around two or three years old," he began having "tantrums" due to "frustration" and "anger," and she had his mental health evaluated. Also during this timeframe, Mother married a man in December 2016 but divorced him within a "couple" of months. Then, in April 2017, Mother gave birth to twins, although the twins were not the children of the man Mother had married in December 2016 and subsequently divorced.

Shortly after the twins' birth in April 2017, the Department received a report in May 2017 that Mother was locking J.D. in his room and that he had bruising on his legs. During an investigation of this report, Mother stated she was "overwhelmed" and "didn't know what to do with [J.D.]." Following the investigation, the Department sought protective supervision of J.D. and his younger twin siblings. Eventually, the State charged Mother with injury to child; Mother pled guilty to disturbing the peace; and the magistrate court granted the Department's request for protective supervision of the children. The Department's protective supervision concluded in approximately February 2018. During this time, Mother received services to improve her parenting skills.

In October 2018, Mother gave birth to a daughter, and in December 2018, she married the daughter's father. A few months later, in April 2019, when J.D. was five years old, Mother took him to the emergency room "with a chief complaint of hyperactive behavior." According to the emergency room physician, Mother reported that J.D. was locked in his room because "it was not time for him to come out" and "he had hit his head against a pane of glass in his bedroom, cracking the glass." The emergency room nurse testified that Mother "was worried about [J.D.'s] behavior being out of control and was looking for a psych placement for [J.D.]." Both the physician and nurse testified to a lack of bonding between Mother and J.D. The physician discharged J.D. with instructions to follow up with family therapy intervention and with J.D.'s treating psychiatrist.

In May 2019, Mother drove J.D. to Boise, and he was admitted into an inpatient behavioral program. According to the child psychiatrist who admitted J.D. into the hospital, he was exhibiting behavioral issues of maladaptive aggression and suicidal thinking. Following this hospitalization, the Department filed a petition to obtain legal custody of J.D. and his three younger siblings under the CPA. After a shelter care hearing, the hospital discharged J.D. into the Department's care.

The magistrate court held a two-day, contested adjudicatory hearing in August 2019 and awarded the Department legal custody of J.D. The court, however, concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over his three younger siblings and dismissed the Department's petition as to those children, and the case proceeded only as to J.D. In September 2019, the court approved a case plan. The case plan identified tasks for Mother to perform to improve her ability to meet J.D.'s mental health and his emotional and developmental needs. Those tasks included, for example, that Mother learn about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, work with the Department to identify J.D.'s needs, learn how to meet those needs, attend visitation with J.D., and demonstrate her ability to provide appropriate parental care for him.

During the case's pendency, the Department placed J.D. in several different foster care arrangements. Initially, the Department placed J.D. in foster care with his step-grandparents. Later, it transferred J.D. to a different foster home. Then, in July 2020, it transferred him to a residential treatment facility for children in crisis. According to a child psychiatrist who began treating J.D. in February 2021, he had "very severe struggles" while at the facility and was hospitalized twice for "out-of-control aggressive behavior directed toward his peers, other kids at the [facility], and staff." The psychiatrist testified that, while at the facility, "[J.D. was] very easily triggered by peers and noise and over activity. So there was a lot of uncontrollable tantruming and aggression in that environment because it's a group care environment with a lot of children."

After J.D. had resided at the residential treatment facility for approximately one year, the Department transferred him to reside with a family in July 2021, approximately six weeks before the termination hearing in August 2021. At the time of the termination hearing, the family was not a licensed foster care family but had applied for a license. As a result, a licensed foster care family "in the area" was "involved" in "oversee[ing] J.D.'s care."

Also during the case's pendency, the magistrate court held numerous review hearings and a permanency hearing in March 2021. During that hearing, the court amended the permanency goal from reunification to a primary goal of termination of parental rights and adoption and a concurrent goal of reunification. In April 2021, the Department petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights, and the court scheduled a termination hearing for August 2021. Approximately a week before that hearing, however, Mother left Idaho and drove to New Hampshire with her husband and other three younger children.^[3]

The magistrate court held a termination hearing over the course of five days in August and September 2021. At the time of the hearing, Mother remained in New Hampshire and appeared at the hearing by video conference. Numerous witnesses testified including Mother, the guardian ad litem, three Department caseworkers, J.D.'s current foster mother, two child psychiatrists, a psychologist, two family therapists, and the emergency room doctor and the nurse who had treated J.D. Additionally, Mother called her husband, her mother-in-law, and a neighbor as witnesses.

Following the termination hearing, the magistrate court entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law terminating Mother's parental rights. Among other things, the court concluded that Mother had neglected J.D. by failing to provide him with proper parental care and control and by failing to comply with her case plan. See Idaho Code § 16-1602(31)(a) (defining neglect to include failing to provide proper parental care and control); I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b) (defining neglect to include failure to comply with case plan and the Department having custody of the child for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months). Additionally, the court concluded that Mother is unable to discharge her parental responsibilities under I.C. § 16-2005(1)(d) and that termination of her parental rights is in J.D.'s best interests.

Mother timely appeals the magistrate court's judgment terminating her parental rights.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Orders Entered in Underlying CPA Case

Mother asserts numerous challenges on appeal, including challenging the magistrate court's orders entered during the pendency of the CPA case. Those challenges include that the court erred by: (1) finding the Department had made reasonable efforts towards reunification, (2) changing the permanency goal from reunification to termination of parental rights, and (3) denying Mother's motion for an extended home visit and to vacate the termination hearing. As discussed below, because I.C. § 16-1625(1)(c) provided for appeal of these orders to the district court or to seek permissive appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, we decline to address Mother's challenges to those orders.

1. Reasonable reunification efforts

Mother asserts the magistrate court "erred in finding [the Department] made reasonable efforts towards reunification from the review hearings." Mother argues that "substantial, competent evidence does not support the court's finding that the Department's efforts were reasonable and that the Department failed to support "the reunification goals" and "to implement reasonable efforts that would ensure [J.D.'s]...