IDHW v. John Doe

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50623

In the Interest of: Jane Doe I, A Child )
Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. )
STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH AND WELFARE, ) Filed: June 22, 2023
)
Petitioner-Respondent, ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
)
v. ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
JOHN DOE (2023-10), ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Respondent-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Fifth Judicial
District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Blaine Cannon, District Judge.

Judgment terminating parental rights, affirmed.

Clayne S. Zollinger, Jr.; Burley, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; James T. Baird, Deputy Attorney
General, Twin Falls, for respondent.
________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge
John Doe appeals from the magistrate court’s judgment terminating his parental rights.
Doe alleges the magistrate court erred in finding a statutory basis for terminating his parental
rights. Because Doe fails to challenge either the magistrate court’s finding that he neglected the
child by failing to complete the case plan or that termination of his parental rights is in the best
interests of the child, the order terminating Doe’s parental rights is affirmed.

1
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Doe is the father of the child, Jane Doe I,1 in this action. The child tested positive for
controlled substances at birth and was declared in imminent danger. The Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare (Department) filed a child protection petition, and the child was placed into
foster care.2 Doe stipulated to the Department’s temporary custody at the shelter care hearing.
The magistrate court ordered a case plan for Doe to complete as part of the reunification efforts.
During the pendency of the case, the child was returned to Doe for an extended home visit. Doe
relapsed on controlled substances, and the child again tested positive for controlled substances.
As a result, the child was returned to the Department’s custody and a new case plan was ordered
for Doe to complete. Thereafter, Doe was arrested for a felony and remained incarcerated during
the pendency of the case.
The magistrate court held regular review hearings while the child was in the Department’s
custody. After Doe was convicted of the felony and sentenced to a prison sentence, the Department
filed a petition to terminate Doe’s parental rights to the child. The magistrate court held a hearing
on the petition where the magistrate court found by clear and convincing evidence that Doe
neglected the child by failing to comply with the case plan. The magistrate court also found that
termination of Doe’s parental rights is in the best interests of the child. Accordingly, the magistrate
court terminated Doe’s parental rights to the child. Doe timely 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

1
Mother’s parental rights to the child were also terminated but are not at issue in this appeal.
2
Doe was the putative father of the child at the time the child was taken into the
Department’s custody. His paternity was later confirmed via a paternity test.
2
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 alleges the magistrate court erred in terminating his parental rights to the
child on the grounds that he is incarcerated and unable to care for the child. He also argues the
district court did not cite to the statutory basis justifying the finding of neglect. He does not
challenge the magistrate court’s findings that he neglected the child for failing to comply with the
case plan or that termination of his parental rights is in the best interests of the child. In response,
the State contends the magistrate court did not err.
A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a relationship with his 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. I.C. § 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; Doe v. Dep’t of Health & Welfare,
146 Idaho 759, 761-62, 203 P.3d 689, 691-92 (2009); Doe, 143 Idaho at 386, 146 P.3d at 652.
Idaho Code § 16-2005(1) permits a party to petition the court for termination of the parent-
child relationship when it is in the child’s best interests 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

3
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.
If the court grants a judgment on more than one independent basis and the appellant does
not challenge each basis for termination, then we must affirm the judgment. Idaho Dep’t of Health
& Welfare v. Doe (2017-36), 163 Idaho 274, 278, 411 P.3d 1175, 1179 (2018) (noting court need
not address parent’s argument because “the magistrate court’s order contains additional,
unchallenged findings of neglect that must be affirmed”); Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe
(2016-09), 163 Idaho 707, 711, 418 P.3d 1216, 1220 (2016) ( holding “When a judgment is granted
on alternative grounds and one of them is not addressed on appeal, we must affirm the judgment.”).
On appeal, Doe argues the magistrate court misapplied the statute by implicitly relying on I.C.
§ 16-2005(1)(e) as the basis for finding Doe neglected the child. He also argues that the district
court erred in finding Doe neglected the child because a finding of neglect cannot be based solely
on Doe’s incarceration at the time of the termination hearing. The State argues the magistrate did
not err in finding a statutory basis for neglect or in concluding that termination of Doe’s parental
rights is in the best interests of the child.
A. Neglect
Idaho Code Section 16-2002(3)(a) defines “neglect” as any conduct included in I.C. § 16-
1602(31). Section 16-1602(31)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a child is neglected when the
child is without proper parental care and control, or subsistence, medical or other care or control
necessary for his or her well-being because of the conduct or omission of his or her parents,
guardian, or other custodian or their neglect or refusal to provide them. Neglect also exists where
the parent has failed to comply with the court’s orders or the case plan in a Child Protective Act
case and the Department has had temporary or legal custody of the child for fifteen of the most
recent twenty-two months and reunification has not been accomplished by the last day of the
fifteenth month in which the child has been in the temporary or legal custody of the Department.
I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b).
As part of the reunification plan in this case, Doe was required to complete a case plan, the
terms of which required Doe to: provide a safe, stable, and drug-free home environment; complete
parenting classes; ensure that his home is appropriate and that all individuals living in the home
are approved by the Department--the child’s mother and two of her children were later permitted
to reside with Doe; follow the conditions of his parole; allow the Department random visits at the

4
home; complete random drug tests as ordered by the Department; sign releases of information; and
enroll the child in an approved daycare. After Doe used methamphetamine while the child was on
an extended home visit, the child was removed from Doe’s home and a new case plan was ordered.
The new plan included the previous terms but also required Doe to undergo a substance abuse
assessment and meet with a mental health professional. Shortly after the new case plan was
entered, Doe was arrested on a new felony charge. Doe was later sentenced to a prison term, and
he remained incarcerated through the termination trial.
In this case, at a consolidated termination hearing for Doe and the child’s mother, the
magistrate court cited to I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b) when addressing the basis for terminating the
mother’s parental rights to the child. Next, the court addressed whether Doe had neglected the
child and concluded that Doe “neglected [the child] as defined in Idaho Code and neglected [the
child] by failing to comply with the case plan.” The magistrate court detailed how Doe failed to
comply with the case plan: Doe did not complete substance abuse treatment; did not consistently
submit to evidentiary testing for controlled substances; did not comply with his parole
requirements; did not complete his portion of the infant/toddler program; did not consistently
provide the child with safe, stable, and drug-free housing; did not attend all scheduled visits with
the child; and did not attend all the child’s medical appointments. The court also noted that Doe
“did well” with the child for several months before Doe’s relapse. The magistrate court’s findings
referenced Doe’s failures to complete the case plan prior to and during his incarceration. Thus,
the magistrate court did not rely on I.C. § 16-2005(1)(e) as Doe argues but, instead, explicitly
relied on I.C. § 16-2002(3)(b), failing to comply with the case plan, as the statutory basis of neglect.
Moreover, Doe’s incarceration was only one factor weighed by the magistrate court in finding Doe
failed to comply with the case plan, not, as argued by Doe, the sole basis for finding neglect.
On appeal, Doe does not challenge any of the magistrate court’s factual findings as detailed
above or the legal conclusion that he neglected the child by failing to comply with the court-
ordered case plan. 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). Because Doe fails to
challenge the statutory basis on which the magistrate court relied for its finding of neglect, we
affirm the magistrate court’s factual findings and legal conclusions finding neglect.

5
B. Best Interests of the Child
The magistrate court found that the child needed significant assistance from adults to attend
to her basic needs; the child had done well in foster care; the child is loved by and bonded to her
foster parents; and the foster parents provided a safe, loving, and stable home, which resulted in
permanency, stability, and consistency for the child. The magistrate court found that Doe was
unable to provide the stability and consistency the child needed, in part, due to his incarceration.
Doe does not challenge either the factual findings or the legal conclusions relating to the issue of
whether termination of his parental rights is in the best interests of the child. As noted above, this
Court generally does not address issues not supported by cogent argument and citation to legal
authority, even in a case terminating parental rights. Doe (2018-24), 164 Idaho at 147, 426 P.3d
at 1247. Consequently, we affirm the magistrate court’s findings and conclusion on this issue.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The judgment terminating Doe’s parental rights to the child is affirmed.
Chief Judge LORELLO and Judge GRATTON CONCUR.

6