Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 35592/35593 IN THE MATTER OF TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE I, CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, _______________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. JOHN DOE II, Defendant/Appellant. _______________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE I, CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, _______________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. JANE DOE I, Defendant/Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Boise, May 2009 2009 Opinion No. 76 Filed: May 29, 2009 Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Gooding County. Hon. Barry Wood, District Judge. Hon. Casey Robinson, Magistrate Judge. The decision of the district court is affirmed. Capitol Law Group, PLLC, Gooding, for appellant Jane Doe I. Rockne Lammers, Jerome, for appellant John Doe II. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ____________________________________

1

W. JONES, Justice NATURE OF CASE Jane Doe I and John Doe II (Appellants) separately appeal Fifth Judicial District Judge Barry Woods decision to affirm Magistrate Judge Casey Robinsons decision to terminate their parental rights to their children based on neglect and the best interest of the children. This Court consolidated the cases. Appellants allege on appeal that there is insufficient evidence to justify termination of their parental rights. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellants had four children that lived in their home prior to the commencement of this action, including two girls and two boys. The oldest child, a daughter, is from the husbands prior marriage and is not involved in this case. Appellants are the natural parents of the other three children, who were seven, four and three when this action commenced. In May 2005, the Department of Health and Welfare (the Department) received a call that Appellants three-year-old child was wandering the streets in the City of Gooding. Soon

thereafter, in-home family services from Northstar were offered to Appellants. In August 2005, the child was again found wandering the streets and law enforcement notified the Department. These events led to the declaration that three of Appellants children were in imminent danger. The children were subsequently returned to the family under protective supervision with a safety plan. At that time, a case plan was created that required Appellants to attend counseling, obtain adequate housing with a fenced yard, get mental health assessments and follow the recommendations contained in those assessments. Appellants were also required to get services for the wifes disability (she suffers from seizures that cause her to blackout) and to make sure the children were never left alone with her. The husband was required to maintain employment. Appellants complied with a portion of the plan. They tried to keep a clean home, they installed locks and alarms on the house and they tried to incorporate discipline in the home. However, Appellants did not complete all of the case plan requirements. Specifically, the husband had trouble maintaining employment and he did not feel that he or his wife needed counseling. Appellants did not follow Northstars recommendations, they never set up daycare, and they did not follow the safety plan.

2

The magistrate court held hearings on this matter in June 2007. A former teacher of one of the children testified that while the child was in foster care, she "blossomed," but after the home visits with her parents she did not do well and was "really difficult." The child was not clean when she was with her parents. A Psycho-Social Rehabilitation (PSR) worker that was assigned to work with Appellants and their children testified that the youngest child had extreme disruptive behaviors; at age five he could not say how old he was, could not say his colors, and could not count to ten. The PSR worker also testified that the child would smear feces on the floor in the home. The PSR worker testified that the child is doing much better in foster care and that the child needs structure, consistency and clear boundaries. The PSR worker also worked with Appellants middle child; his behavior was similar to the youngest childs, but less extreme. The PSR worker testified that the parents used extremely poor judgment, there was not a safe area in the house and there were nails and junk strewn around. Additionally, although the children wanted to see their parents during the visits, there was little to no interaction between the wife and daughter. The daughters foster parent testified that the daughter could not read or write when she went into foster care, they had to work very hard to get the child to the level of performance that she should have been at in school, and the child needs a stable environment with love and attention. The daughter would anticipate the visits with her parents and then would become very emotional and act out after the visits were over. A speech therapist for the Gooding Schools testified that all of the childrens hygiene has improved greatly since going into foster care and that when the children have home visits their "behavior goes off the charts." The principal of Gooding Elementary testified that when the daughter was in Appellants care she missed twenty-eight days of kindergarten and forty-four days of first grade. Since going into foster care, the daughter has missed only three days of second grade and two days of third grade. A case worker from the Department testified that the husband had made threats to the childrens daycare provider and refused to work with the in-home services provided to Appellants. Additionally, the husband would leave his wife home alone with the children in contravention of the safety plan. Appellants generally refused to follow the recommendations of the psychological evaluations. The case worker recommended terminating Appellants parental rights.

3

A worker from Northstar also testified that she worked in Appellants home three times per week for an hour at a time from June 2005 through March 2006. This was an unusually long period of time, as Northstar typically only works with families for three months. She testified that although Appellants became more cooperative over time, she saw no significant change in their ability to parent. Moreover, while Appellants love their kids "dearly," their efforts to improve their parenting skills were not consistent or long-lasting. The worker never saw

evidence of physical abuse, but Appellants did verbally abuse the children while she was present. The verbal abuse lessened as Northstar worked with Appellants. The magistrate court entered a Memorandum Decision on November 26, 2007 and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree on December 5, 2007. The magistrate court terminated Appellants parental rights to their three children based on neglect and the best interest of the children. Appellants each appealed the magistrate courts decision to the district court. On June 25, 2008, the district court affirmed the magistrate courts decision to terminate Appellants parental rights. Appellants then each appealed the district courts decision to this Court and this Court consolidated the cases. ISSUE PRESENTED Whether there was substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the district courts decision to affirm the magistrate courts decision to terminate Appellants parental rights? STANDARD OF REVIEW The Supreme Court reviews the magistrate court record to determine whether there is substantial, competent evidence to support the magistrates findings of fact and whether the magistrates conclusions of law follow from those findings. Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670, 672, 183 P.3d 758, 760 (2008). If those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom and if the district court affirmed the magistrates decision, we affirm the district courts decision as a matter of procedure. Id. In order to terminate parental rights, the magistrate court must find that termination is in the best interest of the child and that one or more of the conditions listed in I.C.

Download doe35592.pdf

Idaho Law