State v. Doe (In re Doe)

• Decision Date: 27 September 2022
• Docket Number: 49643
• Parties: In the Interest of: John Doe I, Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III, and Jane Doe IV, Children Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. v. JANE DOE (2022-12), Respondent-Appellant. STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Petitioner-Respondent,
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

In the Interest of: John Doe I, Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III, and Jane Doe IV, Children Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.

STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
JANE DOE (2022-12), Respondent-Appellant.

No. 49643

Court of Appeals of Idaho

September 27, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

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

Judgment terminating parental rights, affirmed.

McFarland Law Office; Joanna M. McFarland, Lewiston, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Briana Allen, Deputy Attorney General, Lewiston, for respondent.

GRATTON, Judge

Jane Doe appeals from the magistrate court's judgment terminating her parental rights. We affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Jane Doe is the mother of the five minor children who are the subject of the proceedings in this case. The children were placed into the custody of the Department of Health and Welfare (Department) at the shelter care hearing in October 2020. The magistrate court ordered a case plan for Doe as part of reunification efforts.

1

In October 2021, after the magistrate court authorized the change in permanency goal to termination and adoption, the Department filed a petition to terminate Doe's parental rights. The termination trial took place in February and March, 2022. After the trial, the magistrate court found Doe neglected the minor children and that termination of Doe's parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Accordingly, the magistrate court entered a judgment terminating Doe's parental rights to the minor children.^[1] Doe timely appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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. Idaho Code § 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; In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761-62, 203 P.3d 689, 691-92 (2009); Doe, 143 Idaho at 386, 146 P.3d at 652.

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. In re Doe, 143 Idaho

2

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

Idaho Code § 16-2005 permits a party to petition the court for termination of the parentchild relationship when it is in the child's best interest 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.

III. ANALYSIS

Doe challenges the magistrate court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her children. Doe raised eight arguments on appeal^[2]:

1. The magistrate court erred entering judgment in this matter on March 24, 2022 terminating [Doe's] parental right

2. The magistrate court erred in concluding that the children were not Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

3. The magistrate erred in finding the circumstances that brought the children into shelter care.

4. That the magistrate court erred in finding that [Doe] failed to provide proper parental care and control necessary for the children's well[-]being due to her neglect.

5. The magistrate erred in finding that [Doe] failed to timely comply with the case plan.

6. The magistrate court erred in finding that the [Department] had made reasonable efforts towards reunification.

7. The magistrate court erred in finding that it was in the best interest of [Doe's] child for her parental rights to be terminated.

8. That [Doe's] trial attorney was ineffective in representation throughout the life of the CPS case as counsel made several errors throughout the proceedings that prejudiced the outcome.

We will address each argument below.

3

A. Terminating Doe's Parental Rights

Doe lists several factual findings she argues are not supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record because the testimony during trial did not support them. Doe's concern is that the magistrate court supplemented the factual findings with knowledge the court had from prior involvement in the child protection action rather than evidence presented at the termination trial. The Department responds by citing where in the record there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate court's factual findings.

First, Doe challenges the magistrate court's finding that the children are not Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Doe also argues this as a separate substantive claim; as such, we will defer to the analysis of the claim below.

Next, Doe challenges the finding that Doe and the father refused to cooperate with the safety plan that occurred prior to the children's removal. However, the safety assessor testified that at a particular point in time, the parents indicated that they no longer wanted to work with the safety plan. Thus, substantial and competent evidence supports the magistrate court's finding that Doe and the father refused to cooperate with the safety plan.

Next, Doe challenges the magistrate court's finding that "Law enforcement contacts continued before [the] removal of the children from the home (based on parental conflict)" by the Department. During trial, Doe was asked whether one of the children called law enforcement between the time the children were placed back in the home and before removal. Doe confirmed the child had by stating, "I made him, yes." This is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate court's finding regarding law enforcement contact.

Next, Doe challenges the magistrate court's finding that the Department had conducted ten investigations of parental neglect and abuse in relation to Doe. The Department cites to Doe's...