Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 32362
IN THE MATTER OF THE                                                                                  )
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS                                                                        )
REGARDING: JOHN DOE,                                                                                  )
                                                                                                      )   North Idaho, April 2007 Term
STATE  OF  IDAHO,  DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                     )
HEALTH AND WELFARE,                                                                                   )   2007 Opinion No. 83
)
Petitioner-Respondent,                                                                                )   Filed:  May 25, 2007
)
v.                                                                                                    )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
DOE,                                                                                                  )
)
Respondent-Appellant.                                                                                 )
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of
Idaho,  Ada  County.     Honorable  D.  Duff  McKee,  Senior  District  Judge.
Magistrate Judge Carolyn Minder.
The decision of the magistrate, affirmed by the district court terminating Jane
Doe’s parental rights is affirmed.
Ellsworth, Kallas, Talboy & Defranco, P.L.L.C., Boise, for appellant.
Honorable  Lawrence  G.  Wasden,  Attorney  General;  Mary  Jo  Beig,  Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
SCHROEDER, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal following the termination of parental rights of Doe.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case began when John Doe was arrested for drunk driving and driving without a
license with his son in the vehicle.   A Petition for Hearing under the Child Protective Act was
filed and later amended to include counts of neglect against Jane Doe (“Doe”), alleging she was
unable to fulfill her parental responsibilities due to mental health problems and unstable housing.




Ms. Doe did not have custody of her child but had supervised visitation.   She was between
residences so the child was placed in foster care.   John Doe’s parental rights were terminated
when it was determined that he was not the child’s biological father.
The magistrate approved an initial case plan with tasks for Jane Doe to complete.  For six
months after the case plan, Doe did not address any of the tasks required of her.   Following a
hearing in which custody was awarded to the Department of Health and Welfare, a second case
plan was approved which required that Doe:
(1)  participate in and successfully complete a Department approved parenting class
appropriate for the child’s age and level of development and demonstrate those learned skills in
her visits with the child.
(2)  participate in and successfully complete a Department approved Cognitive Self
Change Phase One class.
(3) participate in a Department approved substance abuse education class to develop an
awareness of the effect substance abuse has on children.
(4) provide stable and adequate housing for the child and show proof of that housing to
the Department social worker.
(5) agree to allow the assigned social worker from Children and Family Services and the
Guardian Ad Litem from CASA to make random home visits.
(6)  participate  in  a  psychological  evaluation,  or  provide  the  Department  a  recent
psychological evaluation completed within the last two months, to determine her capacity to
parent and follow through with the recommendations.
(7) comply with random urinalysis that will be free of all non-prescribed medications.
After  trial,  the  magistrate  court  terminated  Doe’s  parental  rights  holding  that  the
Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Doe was unable to discharge her
parental responsibilities because of her mental illness.   The court held that the Department also
proved by clear and convincing evidence that Doe did not complete the conditions of her case
plan which can form the basis for neglect.   The magistrate court’s decision was upheld by the
district court sitting in its appellate capacity.  This appeal followed.
2




II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a decision rendered by the district court sitting in its appellate capacity,
this Court considers the record before the magistrate court independently of the district court’s
determination, giving due regard to the district court’s analysis.   CASI Foundation, Inc. v. Doe,
142 Idaho 397, 399, 128 P.3d 934, 936 (2006).   In an action to terminate parental rights where a
trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, an appellate court
will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are not supported by substantial and
competent evidence.   Id.   Substantial competent evidence is “evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”   State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 345-46 144
P.3d 597, 599-600 (2006) (quoting Folks v. Moscow Sch. Dist. No. 281, 129 Idaho 833, 836, 933
P.2d 642, 645 (1997)).
III.
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO TERMINATE
DOE’S PARENTAL RIGHTS
The  magistrate  court  found  that  there  was  substantial  and  competent  evidence  to
terminate Doe’s parental rights based upon I.C. § 16-2005.   The relevant subsections in effect at
the time allow for termination of parental rights were:
b. The parent has neglected or abused the child.   Neglect as used herein shall
mean a situation in which the child lacks parental care necessary for his health,
morals and well-being.
d. The parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities and such inability
will continue for a prolonged indeterminate period and will be injurious to the
health, morals or well-being of the child.
e. If termination is found to be in the best interest of the parent and child,
where the petition has been filed by a parent or through an authorized agency, or
interested party.
I.C. § 16-2005 (2003).   A court may grant a termination order if one or more of those conditions
exist.   Id.; see also Doe, 143 Idaho at 346, 144 P.3d at 600.   The magistrate judge determined
that there was substantial evidence on which to base a termination of Doe’s parental rights.
Case Plan.   The magistrate judge followed statutory procedures by setting up a case plan
for Doe to follow in order to work toward returning the child to Doe.   See I.C. § 16-1610 (2001)
(redesignated in 2005 as I.C. § 16-1621).   Doe did not complete three of the tasks in her case
3




plan which required her to: (1) attend a parenting class and apply the knowledge she gained from
the class in interaction with her child; (2) obtain substance abuse education tailored toward those
who are family members of substance abusers; and (3) comply with a psychologist’s mental
health recommendations.
Doe’s case worker testified that Doe did what she could in order to complete the case
plan, but she did not gain what she was supposed to from the completed tasks.   Part of the case
plan involved applying what she had learned in a parenting class.  She attended the class, but she
did not demonstrate that she had learned any skills as required to complete this task.   She was
also  required  to  comply  with  her  psychologist’s  recommendations  which  included  taking
prescribed medication.  Doe testified that she was taking her medication and would in the future,
but substantial evidence was presented that she took only the medication she felt she needed and
did not take all the prescribed medications.   She also did not complete the required substance
abuse class.  Instead, she went to a substance abuse evaluation.
Parental  Duties.    The  magistrate  judge  held  that  the  evidence  was                           “essentially
uncontroverted” that Doe is unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of her mental
illness and that her condition will continue for a prolonged period and is injurious to the health,
safety, morals and well-being of the child.  Doe has been diagnosed with several different mental
disorders including bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and anxiety.   She does not believe
she has severe mental problems.    She characterizes them as slight and believes they will
eventually  go  away.    However,  there  was  substantial  evidence  introduced  that  Doe  will
consistently require care for her mental disorders.   Evidence was also introduced that her mental
illness will have a negative impact on her child.
Best Interests.   The magistrate judge held that it was in the best interests of the child to
terminate Doe’s parental rights.   Evidence in the form of testimony and psychological reports
indicated that termination of Doe’s parental rights would be in best interest of the child.
There was substantial and competent evidence to find that Doe’s parental rights should be
terminated.    The  magistrate  court’s  decision  stemmed  from  many  findings  of  fact  in  the
memorandum decision based on testimony and reports from psychologists and case workers.
4




IV.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the magistrate affirmed by the district court terminating Doe’s parental
rights is affirmed.
Justices TROUT, EISMANN, BURDICK and JONES CONCUR.
5

Download doe525.pdf

Idaho Law