IDHW v. Jane Doe

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52443

In the Matter of: John Doe I and John )
Doe II, Children Under Eighteen (18) )
Years of Age. )
STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH AND WELFARE, ) Filed: March 14, 2025
)
Petitioner-Respondent, ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
)
v. ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
JANE DOE (2024-50), ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Respondent-Appellant. )
)

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.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Public Defender; Joshua M. Wickard, Deputy Public
Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Peter A. Mommer, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge
Jane Doe appeals from the magistrate court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to
her children, John Doe I and John Doe II (Children).1 Doe argues the magistrate court erred in
finding that it is in Children’s best interests to terminate Doe’s parental rights. The magistrate
court’s judgment terminating Doe’s parental rights is affirmed.

1
Children’s biological father’s parental rights were terminated in Docket No. 52517. The
parental rights of the father are not at issue in this case.
1
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Doe is the biological mother of Children. In August 2022, John Doe I was placed in foster
care when he was approximately two weeks old. In lieu of an adjudicatory hearing, Doe stipulated
to the magistrate court having jurisdiction over John Doe I, and the magistrate court later awarded
legal custody of John Doe I to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (Department) and
approved a case plan for Doe to complete to reunify with John Doe I. In August 2023, the
magistrate court held a permanency hearing regarding John Doe I and approved termination of
parental rights and adoption as the permanency goal. In October 2023, the State filed a petition to
terminate the parent-child relationship as to John Doe I.
Approximately two weeks later, John Doe II was born and subsequently placed in foster
care shortly after birth. The Department opened a separate Child Protection Act (CPA) case for
John Doe II. The magistrate court held a case plan hearing regarding John Doe II, awarded legal
custody of John Doe II to the Department, and approved another case plan for Doe related to John
Doe II.
In February 2024, the magistrate court held a six-month review hearing regarding the
termination of parental rights trial scheduled for John Doe I. Based on Doe’s performance, the
magistrate court amended the permanency goal regarding John Doe I to that of continued efforts
towards reunification, reinstated the Department’s obligation to make reasonable efforts toward
reunification between John Doe I and Doe, and vacated the termination of parental rights trial vis-
a-vis John Doe I. The magistrate court also granted the consolidation of John Doe I’s case with
John Doe II’s case.
In June 2024, the State filed a motion to amend the permanency goal for Children to
termination of parental rights and subsequent adoption, which the magistrate court granted. The
magistrate court held a trial on the termination of Doe’s parental rights as to Children, where
Department employees, foster parents, Doe, and father testified. The magistrate court
subsequently issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree terminating parental rights.
The magistrate court determined that Doe neglected Children and it is in the best interests of
Children to have Doe’s parental rights terminated. Doe appeals.

2
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 magistrate court’s decision
must be supported by objectively supportable grounds. Doe, 143 Idaho at 346, 144 P.3d at 600.
III.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Doe does not challenge the magistrate court’s finding that she neglected
Children. Doe only argues that the magistrate court erred in finding that it is in Children’s best
interests to terminate Doe’s parental rights. The State argues that Doe has waived all assignments
of error by failing to make specific arguments about how the magistrate court erred. Alternatively,
the State argues that the magistrate court did not err in finding that termination of Doe’s parental
rights is in Children’s best interests.
Once a statutory ground for termination has been established, the trial court must next
determine whether it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent-child relationship.
Tanner v. State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 120 Idaho 606, 611, 818 P.2d 310, 315 (1991). When
determining whether termination is in the child’s best interests, the trial court may consider the
parent’s history with substance abuse, the stability and permanency of the home, the
unemployment of the parent, the financial contribution of the parent to the child’s care after the
child is placed in protective custody, the improvement of the child while in foster care, the parent’s
efforts to improve his or her situation, and the parent’s continuing problems with the law. Doe
(2015-03) v. Doe, 159 Idaho 192, 198, 358 P.3d 77, 83 (2015); Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare

3
v. Doe, 156 Idaho 103, 111, 320 P.3d 1262, 1270 (2014). A finding that it is in the best interests
of the child to terminate parental rights must still be made upon objective grounds. Idaho Dep’t
of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 152 Idaho 953, 956-57, 277 P.3d 400, 403-04 (Ct. App. 2012).
Because Doe does not challenge the magistrate court’s finding that Doe neglected Children, we
need only address whether termination of Doe’s parental rights is in the best interests of Children.
In finding that it is in Children’s best interests to have Doe’s parental rights terminated, the
magistrate court held that it is in Children’s best interests to be raised in a safe and stable home
with sober, consistent caregivers. The magistrate court found that Doe was unsuccessfully battling
her addiction to methamphetamine and marijuana, was unable to obtain safe and stable housing,
had been in and out of custody over the past twenty-six months, and remained incarcerated with a
possibility of up to six years in prison. Ultimately, the magistrate court stated it had no confidence
that Doe would make different choices in the future, so it declined to give Doe more time to meet
Children’s needs.
Doe argues that the magistrate court’s findings are not supported by substantial and
competent evidence; however, Doe fails to challenge any of the magistrate court’s findings or
articulate why those findings did not justify terminating her parental rights. This Court generally
does not address issues not supported by cogent argument and citation to legal authority, even in
a case terminating parental rights. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe (2018-24), 164 Idaho
143, 147, 426 P.3d 1243, 1247 (2018). The Court, however, may address certain narrow issues
involving due process violations despite the absence of supporting, cogent argument or citation to
legal authority. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe (2017-32), 163 Idaho 536, 538, 415 P.3d
945, 947 (2018); State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 536, 164 P.3d 814, 816 (2007).
Nonetheless, the magistrate court’s findings are supported by substantial and competent
evidence. Regarding the finding that Doe was unsuccessfully battling her addiction to
methamphetamine and marijuana, Doe testified at trial that she had an affinity to marijuana. Doe
testified that she was aware that she tested positive several times for different substances
throughout the case. Doe testified her substance abuse addiction began when she was a teenager
and has continued to be an issue for her. Doe testified that she put herself into a substance use
treatment program because she believed she had a problem. Regarding her incarceration and
housing status, Doe testified that she was currently incarcerated with the possibility of serving an
aggregate term of seven years. Concerning her housing situation, Doe testified that she had been

4
evicted from her home. The magistrate court’s findings are supported by substantial and
competent evidence.
Next, Doe argues that the magistrate court failed to consider the significant bond between
Doe and Children in its best interests analysis. Doe cites the magistrate court’s finding that Doe
“is nurturing, brings age-appropriate food and plays with both the children” and “[n]o one involved
in this case questions that [Doe] loves her children, and they love her in return.” Contrary to Doe’s
claim, the magistrate court noted that Doe herself testified that “love is not enough.” The
magistrate court agreed that “love and affection alone does not provide a stable house with a sober
parent who is able to meet a child’s basic mental, physical, educational and emotional needs.”
Consequently, the magistrate court did not fail to consider relevant evidence and did not err in
concluding it is in the best interests of Children to terminate Doe’s parental rights.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The magistrate court did not err in finding that termination of Doe’s parental rights is in
Children’s best interests because its findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence.
Therefore, the judgment terminating Doe’s parental rights is affirmed.
Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge TRIBE, CONCUR.

5