State v. Doe (In re Doe)
| Decision Date | 03 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 49777,Docket No. 49777 |
| Citation | 519 P.3d 1217 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of: Jane Doe I and John Doe I, Children Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. v. JANE DOE (2022-22), Respondent-Appellant. STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Petitioner-Respondent, |
Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the First Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Kootenai County. James D. Stow Magistrate Judge.
The decision of the magistrate court is affirmed.
Patricia L. Espeland, Office of the Kootenai County Public Defender, Coeur d' Alene, attorney for Appellant.
Denise L. Rosen, Deputy Idaho Attorney General, Coeur d'Alene attorney for Respondent.
Jane Doe (Mother) appeals from a magistrate court's judgment granting the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare's (the Department) petition to terminate her parental rights to her minor children, Jane Doe I and John Doe I (the children)[1]. The magistrate court determined that Mother had neglected the children as defined in Idaho Code section 16-2002(3)(b), and that termination was in the best interests of the children. On appeal, Mother asserts that the definition of "neglect" provided in section 16-2002(3)(b) violates the Idaho and the United States Constitutions, and she argues that the magistrate court's finding that termination was in the children's best interests was not supported by substantial and competent evidence.
This case stems from a child protection action in Kootenai County, Idaho. On May 3, 2020, Jane Doe I (born in July 2016) and John Doe I (born in December 2018) were sheltered by law enforcement after Mother was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) while the children were in the car. Mother was charged with a DUI and Injury to Child. A shelter care hearing took place on May 5, 2020, at which Mother stipulated to the children remaining under the temporary legal custody of the Department.
In June 2020, the magistrate court ordered a case plan for Mother. The case plan outlined safety concerns, personal goals for Mother, and tasks she needed to complete to accomplish reunification. The primary concerns related to substance abuse, lack of stable housing, lack of employment, mental health issues, and violence in the home. The case plan specifically referenced:
[Mother] has a significate [sic] history of substance use and reports self-medicating with methamphetamines and marijuana due to symptoms of depression. [Mother] reports she does not want to give up using marijuana and does not feel she has a significant problem with methamphetamine despite past and pending criminal charges regarding these substances. [Mother] also reports struggling with sobriety around [Father]. [Mother] is unable to provide for the safety and wellbeing need[s] of her children due to her homelessness and unemployment.
The first goal identified was that Mother "will demonstrate the ability to engage in a clean and sober lifestyle free from methamphetamines, marijuana as well as alcohol and/or other illegal substances." Another goal was for Mother to "demonstrate that she can provide for the ongoing safety and well-being needs of her children." She was to "establish and secure stable housing free from paraphernalia and substances." Mother was present and represented by counsel at a hearing discussing the case plan and stipulated the case plan was acceptable.
The magistrate court conducted regular review hearings, where it made findings concerning (1) the need for the children to remain in the legal custody of the Department and (2) the reasonable efforts that had been made by the Department to pursue reunification. Although Mother complied with most of the mandatory drug tests, she routinely tested positive for marijuana throughout the case. The Department discussed with Mother its concerns about the impact her continued marijuana usage had on the children's safety and well-being, but Mother disagreed, maintaining, despite the case plan, that her marijuana use had no adverse effect on her children's safety or well-being.
At a permanency hearing on March 2, 2021, the magistrate court ordered a permanency plan with reunification as the primary goal and termination of parental rights as a secondary goal, with Mother's weekly visitation continuing. The children remained in the legal custody of the Department. Recurrent permanency review hearings took place over the next several months, at which the court found the Department continued to make reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan of reunification as the primary goal and termination of parental rights as a secondary goal. However, Mother continued to test positive for marijuana use during this time.
Nearly a year after the children were first sheltered, Mother obtained housing in April 2021. Mother lived with Father in a two-bedroom mobile home in the state of Washington. Mother's 17-year-old daughter, C.W., and the daughter's boyfriend lived in this home for a time. Mother's parental rights had been previously terminated to this daughter, as well as to two other children.[2]
Because Mother lived across the Idaho state line in Washington, an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) process was required. The ICPC is a contract among states intended to ensure that children placed across state lines receive adequate protection and services. See 159 Am. Jur. Trials 97 (2019); I.C. § 16-2101. The Department launched that ICPC process once Mother secured housing. As part of the ICPC, Idaho asked Washington to complete a home study and assess whether the home environment and the parents were considered an appropriate placement for the children. Washington completed its own background checks and home visits as part of the process.
In April 2021, the Department recommended moving forward with termination of parental rights, citing Mother's minimal case plan progress. The Department explained there had been a lack of accountability and Mother had not addressed the concerns that originally brought the children into the State's custody. At a review hearing on May 4, 2021, the Department continued to cite concerns about positive marijuana tests and Mother's ongoing substance abuse. The magistrate court declined to change the permanency plan at that time, leaving the primary goal as reunification but stressing that it was time for Mother to show effort and establish basic parenting skills.
On July 20, 2021, the Department requested Mother complete a hair follicle test after it received information that methamphetamine was still being used in the home. Mother refused to complete a hair follicle test stating, "I'm not in trouble I am not on probation and I believe UAs are sufficient." Mother continued to test positive for marijuana and alcohol in her UAs.
In August 2021, the Department again asked the magistrate court to move forward with termination as the primary goal rather than reunification, reasoning that Mother had made only minimal progress on her case plan to address the significant concerns that brought the children into care. In particular, the Department cited the continued substance abuse, lack of engagement in the ICPC process, as well as Mother's lack of accountability.
Mother's employment was sporadic throughout the case. In March 2021, Mother reported that she began working at Walmart in Spokane, Washington; however, she never provided proof of employment. At the end of April 2021, Mother reported she no longer worked at Walmart because she could make more on unemployment. In June 2021, Mother told the Department she had been hired by Amazon; however, she never provided proof of employment. On August 30, 2021, Mother reported that she was hired part-time at Dollar Tree. This was confirmed through pay stubs Mother provided to the Department.
Following a permanency review hearing on November 9, 2021, the magistrate court amended the ordered permanency plan to termination of parental rights as the primary goal and reunification as the secondary goal. The children continued to remain in the Department's custody.
On December 14, 2021, the Department petitioned to terminate parental rights on four grounds, including an allegation that "[t]he parent[s] ha[ve] neglected the children because the parent[s] ha[ve] failed to comply with the court's orders in a children protective act case or the case plan, and reunification of the children with the parent[s] has/have not occurred within the time standards set forth in Idaho Code [section] 16-2002(3)(b)." The Department also alleged "termination is in the best interest of the parent[s] and the children." The Department attached its report of investigation for termination of parent-children relationship.
A trial was held on March 30, through April 1, 2022. Although various grounds were alleged in the Department's petition, the focus at trial, and ultimately in the magistrate court's decision, was on whether the Department had proven the grounds of neglect for the parents' failure to comply with the case plan and whether termination would be in the best interests of the children.
Mother's attorney argued Idaho Code section 16-2002(3)(b) could not be the basis for termination because "[t]he case plan has been completed." Mother's attorney referenced testimony that "GAINs were done, treatment had been attended, couples counseling had been attempted, housing has been found, employment has been found, [and] 24-hour safety monitors were identified." Mother's attorney then argued that the Department was creating a "moving target" by requiring ICPC when it was not mentioned in Mother's case plan.
Mother also advocated that a requirement outside the case plan violates the parents' due process...
To continue reading
Request your trial