IDHW v. Jane Doe (2025-32)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53117

In the Matter of: )
Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II, Children )
Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. )
STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH AND WELFARE, ) Filed: December 10, 2025
)
Petitioner-Respondent, ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
)
v. ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
JANE DOE (2025-32), ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Respondent-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Third Judicial
District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Courtnie R. Tucker, Magistrate.

Judgment terminating parental rights, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Public Defender; Alex W. Brockman, Deputy State
Public Defender, Caldwell, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Richard W. Roberts, Jr., Deputy
Attorney General, Caldwell, for respondent.
________________________________________________

GRATTON, Chief Judge
Jane Doe (2025-32) appeals from the decision of the magistrate court terminating her
parental rights. We affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Doe is the biological mother of Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II (Children). After Jane Doe II’s
birth, her umbilical cord tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. The Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare (Department) and the Nampa Police Department investigated,
and Doe admitted to using methamphetamine while pregnant. Because Children’s father was
incarcerated and no relatives were available, the Department took Children into custody.

1
The State filed a Child Protective Act (CPA) petition in July 2023. At the shelter care
hearing, Doe stipulated to having an unstable home environment and Children remained in the
Department’s custody. Doe failed to appear for the adjudicatory hearing, and the magistrate court
found the Children came within the CPA’s jurisdiction based on instability in the home. The
magistrate court approved a case plan requiring Doe to complete substance abuse treatment, submit
to testing, obtain stable housing, and participate in visitation. The magistrate court warned Doe
noncompliance could lead to termination.
At review hearings held between January and April 2024, the Department reported that
Doe completed a substance abuse assessment but failed to participate in treatment, drug testing, or
regular visitation. The magistrate court changed the permanency goal from reunification to
termination. The State filed a petition for termination, alleging neglect, abandonment, and failure
to comply with the case plan. Although Doe later resumed visitation and enrolled in treatment,
she continued to miss urinalysis testing. The magistrate court granted the State’s motion to cease
reasonable efforts and visitation.
The termination trial was held in May 2025; Doe was present and testified. The magistrate
court entered its findings and judgment terminating Doe’s parental rights to Children, concluding
termination is in Children’s best interests. Doe appeals.
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.

2
III.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Doe does not challenge the magistrate court’s finding that she neglected
Children. Doe only argues the magistrate court erred in finding that it is in Children’s best interests
to terminate Doe’s parental rights. The Department argues the magistrate court did not err in
finding either that Doe neglected Children or 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.
In re Aragon, 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 effort 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 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.
Doe argues that, while the record demonstrates she struggled with substance abuse, at the
time of trial she: (1) was sober; (2) had a continuing bond with Children; and (3) had a stable
home environment. Doe asserts the evidence before the magistrate court was mixed and does not
meet the clear and convincing standard required to terminate parental rights.
In regard to her sobriety, the magistrate court noted Doe did complete a mental health
evaluation, which recommended she engage in substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment,
and submit to drug testing. Doe participated in a substance abuse treatment course, but the
magistrate court found she failed to follow through with aftercare treatment. Additionally, Doe
failed to submit to drug testing. The magistrate court found Doe missed over 100 scheduled drug
tests. The only drug test the Department could recall Doe participating in was done on the eve of

3
the termination trial. During the month of the termination trial, Doe gave birth in Oregon and the
child was removed from her care because she tested positive for illegal substances at the time of
birth. The magistrate court found Doe failed to verify any period of sobriety through testing.
The magistrate court also found Doe’s visitation with Children was problematic. Doe was
very inconsistent when exercising visits and she was often difficult with staff, at times yelling and
engaging in name-calling. Doe was not always engaged during visits and fell asleep during a visit
where she was not easily roused by staff. The Department also testified there was conflict during
visits due to Children referring to their foster mother as “mommy.” Doe would subsequently yell
at Children to correct this behavior. The magistrate court found Doe never progressed beyond
supervised visitation or demonstrated enhanced parenting skills. Doe described her relationship
with Children as “rocky.”
Further, the magistrate court found Doe never communicated with the Department about
where she was living and did not verify that she had a safe and stable home for Children. The
Department was unable to conduct a home visit to assess Doe’s home. Although Doe claims to
have had stable housing with a friend who committed to supporting Doe and Children indefinitely,
Doe testified at trial she had been living at a senior living facility temporarily, and that she had
applied for her own place. The magistrate court found Doe does not have appropriate housing for
Children to be placed in her care.
In finding it is in Children’s best interests to terminate Doe’s parental rights, the magistrate
court first referenced its findings relative to neglect by failing to complete the case plan. The
magistrate court found Doe did not complete her case plan tasks; namely, Doe did not verify safe
and stable housing, submit to drug testing as requested, obtain a mental health evaluation and
follow the recommendations, attend visitation and service appointments with Children, complete
a parenting class, or maintain contact with the Department. Ultimately, the magistrate court found
that Doe remains unstable. Specifically, the magistrate court found Doe’s sobriety and mental
health remained unaddressed; Doe does not have a safe and stable home; and Doe is facing another
child protection case involving the recent birth of another child who tested positive for illegal
substances. Further, the magistrate court noted Doe had not bonded with Children.
Finally, the magistrate court found Children are happy and healthy in foster care. All
Children’s needs are met by their foster parents. Children are safe, stable, and have improved in
foster care. The Idaho Supreme Court has noted the evaluation of best interests of the children

4
“includes their physical, mental, and emotional well-being with all parties involved.” In re Doe,
157 Idaho 14, 16, 333 P.3d 125, 127 (2014). Likewise, children can be negatively impacted when
a parent fails to maintain a normal parental relationship with them. Id. at 17, 333 P.3d at 128. The
magistrate court found Doe has not demonstrated that she can provide the consistency and support
Children need for their well-being.
The magistrate court’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence in the
record. Therefore, the magistrate court did not err in concluding it is in the best interests of
Children to terminate Doe’s parental rights.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Doe has failed to show error in the magistrate court’s decision to terminate her parental
rights. Accordingly, the judgment of the magistrate court terminating Doe’s parental rights is
affirmed.
Judge HUSKEY and Judge LORELLO CONCUR.

5