State v. Doe (In re Doe)

• Docket Number: 50875
• Decision Date: 03 November 2023
• Parties: In the Interest of: JOHN DOE I, JANE DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, AND JANE DOE II, Juveniles Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. v. JOHN DOE (2023-25), Respondent-Appellant. STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE Petitioner-Respondent,
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

1

In the Interest of: JOHN DOE I, JANE DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, AND JANE DOE II, Juveniles Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.

STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
JOHN DOE (2023-25), Respondent-Appellant.

No. 50875

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 3, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bannock County. Anson Call, Magistrate Judge.

The magistrate court's order is affirmed.

Price Legal Care, PLLC, Pocatello, attorneys for Appellant. James Price submitted argument on the briefs.

Department of Health and Welfare, Pocatello, attorneys for Respondents. Jason Chandler submitted argument on the briefs.

BEVAN, CHIEF JUSTICE.

This case involves parents who were living separately and their five children. It proceeded to the legal system because of concerning reports of physical abuse and neglect brought to the attention of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare ("Department") that resulted in a court-ordered investigation. The child protection case began in February 2023 as a protective

2

supervision^[1] case. Nearly three months later, the magistrate court ordered that the children be removed from the home and placed in the legal custody of the Department.

John Doe (Father) appeals the magistrate court's order removing his five children from the parents' custody and temporarily placing the children in the legal custody of the Department. Father asserts that the magistrate court's order failed to contain detailed written findings as required by Idaho law, that the order was not supported by substantial and competent evidence, and that the magistrate court's actions violated Father's fundamental rights to the care and custody of his children. We affirm.

I. Factual And Procedural Background

Jane Doe (Mother) and Father are married but have been separated since February 2023 and live in separate households. Mother and Father have five children, ranging in ages from fifteen to eight: Oldest Son, Oldest Daughter, Middle Son, Youngest Son, Youngest Daughter.

Before the children were placed in protective custody, Mother and Father had extensive contact with the Department. The Department received a referral on December 15, 2020, over concerns related to a fight between Mother and Father, in which Father allegedly put a gun to his head and refused to allow Mother access to their children. On March 9, 2022, the Department received a report that Father held Oldest Son down and yelled at him. The Department received another referral on September 30, 2022, alleging that Youngest Daughter was often hungry and not permitted to eat freely. On October 24, 2022, the Department was alerted after Father threatened to put Oldest Son "through a wall."

In January and February 2023, the Department conducted six court-ordered investigations involving claims of physical abuse by Father and Mother against the children.^[2] At the initial contact with Mother and Father, the Department spoke to Father over the phone. Father reported concerns about Mother's mental health. Father sent the Department screenshots of text messages between him and Mother. One message, sent to Father in January 2023, was from a contact saved in his phone as "Mother's name," that stated: "Just kill me already I'm done . . . Tell the kids I love them

3

bye." Father responded to this message stating, "Answer your phone please . . . So you're threatening to kill yourself if I don't drop the order? Answer your phone, this isn't funny."

Father filed several petitions for civil protection orders ("CPO") against Mother on behalf of all the children, one of which was in late February 2023. At the hearing on the petition, Father introduced a recording from Mother, where she made statements such as "Shut up before I smack you." Father alleged this statement was made to Oldest Son. Later in the recording, Mother stated, "Crazy person trying to kill people." Father also reported that he told Oldest Son he was going to "lay him out" if Oldest Son hit Mother.

On February 27, 2023, the Bannock County Prosecutor's Office filed a petition under the Child Protective Act and requested that the children be placed under the protective supervision of the Department. In the adjudicatory report of investigation, filed by the Department on March 17, the Department noted that Mother had experienced trauma related to prior domestic violence by Father against her during their marriage. Although Mother did not disclose any mental health diagnosis, the Department explained that collateral contacts reported concerns about Mother's mental health. Related to Father, the Department's report revealed that Father displayed PTSD symptoms from his military service in Iraq. The Department also noted several of Father's prior convictions, including a 2009 charge for misdemeanor domestic battery/assault with an enhancement for a child present, that was pleaded down to disturbing the peace. In 2019, Father was charged with felony injury to child, which was later dismissed. Both Father and the children reported that Father disciplined the children by yelling, sending them to their room, and spanking them.

Soon after, the magistrate court appointed a guardian ad litem ("GAL"). Following an adjudicatory hearing a few days later on March 27, the magistrate court placed the children under the Department's protective supervision, with Mother and Father retaining custody of the children. The Department, Mother, and Father worked to create a visitation plan for the parents since they lived in different households. That said, on April 8, Mother would not allow two of the children to visit with Father, as required by their agreement, and Father contacted law enforcement. Police responded, but ultimately told Father he would need to resolve the issue through the courts.

On April 18, the magistrate court held a case plan hearing. In its proposed case plan, the Department noted that there were no safety concerns in either Mother's or Father's home to limit the length or frequency of visitation with either parent. The Department explained in that plan that

4

it was "in the best interest of the children for the parents to identify a schedule[,]" which should be done before leaving the hearing. At the hearing, the magistrate court interviewed each child. During those interviews, the children reported fighting with Mother and one instance of physical contact. Following the interviews, the magistrate court gave the parents general tasks to complete, including enrolling the children in school, abstaining from any physical discipline, and not restricting access between the children and the other parent. The magistrate court ordered visitation on a three-day rotating basis, beginning with Mother on April 20. The order also permitted Oldest Son, who is autistic, the option to spend time with either parent if he became overstimulated.

On April 22, while the children were with Mother, the children texted and called Father to report "fighting throughout the day." That night, Father contacted law enforcement, requesting a welfare check after receiving a text from Oldest Daughter that Mother had taken Oldest Daughter's phone. When law enforcement responded to Mother's residence, the children were sleeping. Law enforcement spoke with Mother and asked about the children having phones. Mother told police that the children were allowed to have phones, but Father gave an extra phone to Oldest Daughter, which Mother took away when it was bedtime.

On May 1, 2023, the magistrate court entered a case plan order that would: (1) require visitation to proceed with Mother for three days and then Father for three days; (2) permit Oldest Son to visit the home of the other parent if he became overstimulated; (3) restrict both parents from involving the children in court proceedings; (4) require the children to be enrolled in school; (5) prohibit physical discipline; and (6) mandate that neither parent restrict the other from access to the children.

On May 2, Father again received texts from the children while in Mother's care. The children told Father that Mother was threatening to hurt herself. Father contacted law enforcement again after receiving a text from one of the children alleging that Mother was "going nuts." Law enforcement advised Father that because police had responded before to a welfare check for a similar incident, Father needed to provide his court paperwork and the text message he had received. They also informed Father that they would conduct a welfare check, but "would not allow him to use his children as collateral in an ongoing child protection case and civil divorce to his advantage." As officers reviewed the case plan order that Father sent, Father reported to dispatch that one of the children had sent him a text message alleging Mother planned to commit suicide. Police went to the home and found Mother and three of the children crying and upset.

5

Mother denied having suicidal ideations, and law enforcement did not believe the children were at risk. After law enforcement told Father that a welfare check had been completed, Father asked the status of Mother's mental health. Law enforcement declined to release that information, which made Father upset. Law enforcement reiterated that the children were safe and declined to release any other information.

Following the case plan order, Father filed for another CPO, which was granted on May 8, preventing Mother from having contact or visitation with the children. On May 11, the GAL filed a review report. In the report, the GAL worried about Father, including a concern that Father "has spent the entire time contacting various people trying to make himself look like the best parent and trying to make [Mother] look bad." The GAL summarized by explaining that the "children are still being manipulated by...