Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A mother and her fiancé filed a petition to terminate the biological father's parental rights and allow the fiancé to adopt the child. The mother did not serve the father with the petition, and he did not participate in the proceedings. The magistrate court terminated the father's parental rights and granted the adoption. The father later filed two motions to set aside the judgment, arguing that his due process rights were violated due to lack of notice. The magistrate court denied the second motion, citing res judicata. The district court reversed this decision, finding that the father's due process argument warranted consideration.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion, which alleged a fundamental error violating his constitutional right to due process, was not barred by res judicata. The court applied the fundamental error doctrine, which allows for exceptions to procedural bars when a fundamental constitutional right is at stake. The court also rejected the mother's arguments that the father's motion was barred by the doctrines of claim splitting, invited error, appellate waiver, and the law of the case.The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to remand the case to the magistrate court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion was timely and whether the termination and adoption judgment was void. The court also awarded the father partial attorney fees on appeal for defending against certain arguments made by the mother. View "Doe v. Doe" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife divorced in 2020, with Husband required to pay child support and attorney fees. Two years later, Wife initiated a contempt proceeding against Husband for failing to comply with the divorce decree. On the day of the contempt trial, Husband informed the court he was unable to attend due to vehicle issues. The magistrate court proceeded with the trial in his absence, found him in criminal contempt, and sentenced him to 70 days in jail, with 50 days suspended, and ordered him to pay additional attorney fees.The district court affirmed the magistrate court's decision to hold the trial in Husband's absence but reversed the incarceration sanction, finding insufficient evidence that Husband waived his right to counsel. The district court concluded that the magistrate court violated Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 75(l)(1) by imposing incarceration without an attorney present to represent Husband.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the magistrate court erred in holding the contempt trial in Husband's absence. The court held that a contemnor's right to be present at a criminal contempt trial is protected under the Sixth Amendment, similar to a criminal defendant's right. The court concluded that Husband's willful absence did not constitute a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to be present. The proper procedure would have been to issue a writ of attachment to ensure Husband's attendance.The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the order of contempt and remand to the magistrate court for further proceedings. The court also found the district court's failure to address Wife's request for attorney fees harmless, as Husband's appeal was not frivolous. No attorney fees were awarded on appeal, and costs were awarded to Husband. View "Salazar v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Jennifer and Jesse Smith divorced in 2017 after fifteen years of marriage. Jennifer, a stay-at-home mother, and Jesse, a construction superintendent, entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement requiring Jesse to pay Jennifer spousal support until January 1, 2025. The agreement included a "Review Term" stating that spousal support would be reviewed every two years. In 2018, Jesse unilaterally reduced the spousal support payments and later stopped paying altogether, leading Jennifer to file a breach of contract action.The magistrate judge dismissed Jesse's petition to modify the spousal support due to a non-merger clause, which kept the spousal support provision outside the court's jurisdiction. Jennifer then sought partial summary judgment in district court, arguing that the Review Term was too vague to be enforceable. The district court agreed, striking the Review Term but upholding the rest of the spousal support provision under the agreement's severability clause. The jury found Jesse in breach of the agreement and awarded Jennifer $76,514 in damages, plus attorney fees and costs.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the Review Term was unenforceable due to its vagueness, indefiniteness, and uncertainty. The court also upheld the district court's application of the severability clause, maintaining the enforceability of the remaining spousal support provision. Jennifer was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal as the prevailing party. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

James Wilson and Jillian Wilson, who were married and had one minor child, divorced, leading to a custody dispute. The magistrate court awarded primary physical custody to Jillian and allowed her to relocate with the child to Australia, where both hold citizenship. Jillian was also granted sole legal custody over educational and medical decisions, while James was given two weeks of visitation annually during school breaks. James appealed the decision.The magistrate court's decision was based on several factors, including the unhealthy relationship between James and the child, characterized by controlling and manipulative behavior. The court found that James's actions, such as co-sleeping and inappropriate touching, created an environment that could potentially harm the child. The court also considered Jillian's motivations for relocating, including better family support and higher income prospects in Australia.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the magistrate court's decision. The court held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Jillian to relocate with the child, as the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence. The court also found that the magistrate court correctly applied the legal standard for relocation and considered the best interests of the child.Additionally, the Supreme Court of Idaho upheld the magistrate court's decision to limit James's physical custody and visitation, as well as the award of sole legal custody to Jillian for educational and medical decisions. The court concluded that these decisions were in the best interests of the child and were supported by substantial evidence. Jillian was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal. View "Wilson v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Amanda Mitchell filed for a civil protection order against Nicholas Ramlow in October 2020, alleging that he was stalking her by tracking her movements and placing a tracking device on her car. The magistrate court issued a temporary ex parte protection order and scheduled a hearing. Due to COVID-19 mask mandates, Ramlow was denied entry to the courthouse for refusing to wear a mask, leading to the hearing being rescheduled. At the rescheduled hearing, Ramlow was again absent, and the magistrate court issued a one-year protection order requiring him to attend a 52-week domestic violence course and review hearings.Ramlow filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then appealed to the district court. The protection order was extended but expired before the district court heard the appeal. The district court requested supplemental briefing on mootness and ultimately dismissed the appeal as moot, finding no applicable exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Ramlow appealed the district court's decision, arguing that his appeal still presented justiciable issues and fell within exceptions to the mootness doctrine.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the appeal was moot because the protection order had expired, and no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. The court found that the issues were too fact-specific to be capable of repetition yet evading review, there were no collateral legal consequences, and the case did not raise issues of substantial public interest. The court also declined to vacate the expired protection order and denied attorney fees to both parties, awarding costs to Mitchell as the prevailing party. View "Mitchell v. Ramlow" on Justia Law

This case involves child custody proceedings between Isaac William Hess and Lisa Ann Hess, who have two minor children registered as members of the Cherokee Nation. Isaac alleged that Lisa abused the children by spanking them with a PVC pipe and claimed she was a negligent mother. During the proceedings, Isaac's father was briefly granted emergency guardianship by the District Court of the Cherokee Nation, but the case was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues. The Idaho magistrate court awarded Lisa sole physical custody and joint legal custody with final decision-making authority, and ordered Isaac to pay child support backdated to January 1, 2021.Isaac appealed to the district court, arguing that the magistrate court erred by not consulting with the Cherokee Nation court regarding jurisdiction, failing to refer his child abuse allegations to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW), focusing on only one statutory factor in awarding custody, effectively granting Lisa sole legal custody without proper findings, and backdating the child support award. The district court affirmed the magistrate court's decisions on jurisdiction, the child abuse referral, and physical custody, but Isaac appealed further.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's decisions on jurisdiction, the child abuse referral, and physical custody. The court held that the magistrate court correctly determined it had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and that Isaac's allegations did not constitute child abuse under Idaho law. However, the court reversed the district court's affirmation of the magistrate court's decisions on legal custody and backdated child support. The magistrate court's legal custody decision was found to be internally contradictory, and its decision to backdate child support deviated from the Idaho Child Support Guidelines without explanation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these issues. The court also awarded Lisa partial attorney fees for responding to Isaac's jurisdictional argument. View "Hess v. Hess" on Justia Law

Jacob Wilde and Mickayla Taggart, formerly married, are parents to a minor child, E.W. Following their divorce in 2018, Wilde was ordered to pay $143.07 per month in child support. Wilde later filed petitions to modify the custody arrangement and child support, citing Taggart's alleged incapacity and unemployment. Taggart responded, explaining her inability to work due to an autoimmune disease and requested child support modification based on the Idaho Child Support Guidelines.The magistrate court found that Taggart's income had been minimal since the petition was filed and imputed her income at minimum wage. Wilde's income was determined to be $58,240 annually. The court retroactively modified child support to $420.34 per month starting August 2019, creating an arrearage for Wilde. Wilde's motion to reconsider was denied, and the magistrate court reaffirmed its decision, adjusting the child support amount to $485.34 from June 2021.Wilde appealed to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate court's decision. The district court found that the magistrate court had substantial evidence to support its findings and did not abuse its discretion in making the child support modification retroactive.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The court found that the magistrate court acted within its discretion, supported by substantial evidence of the parties' changed incomes. The court noted that Wilde had been aware of the potential for retroactive modification and had not disputed the child support calculations. The Supreme Court awarded attorney fees and costs to Taggart, deeming Wilde's appeal frivolous and without foundation. View "Wilde v. Taggart" on Justia Law

In this case, the State of Idaho removed five minor children from their parents' home following allegations of physical abuse. The children ranged in age from sixteen years to fourteen months. Law enforcement responded to a report of an altercation between the mother and the eldest child, during which the mother admitted to hitting the child with a plastic hanger. Other children reported frequent physical discipline, including being hit with belts and hands. The children were declared to be in imminent danger and were removed from the home.The Bannock County Prosecutor’s Office filed a petition under the Child Protective Act (CPA) to place the children in the custody of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW). The magistrate court held a shelter care hearing and found reasonable cause to believe the children were in danger, placing them in temporary custody of IDHW. The parents objected, arguing that the removal violated their constitutional rights and that the magistrate court’s findings were unsupported by substantial evidence.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the magistrate court’s adjudicatory decree. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the initial removal because the parents failed to raise the issue in the lower court. The Court also found that the challenge to the shelter care order was moot because it was supplanted by the adjudicatory decree. The Court held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the older children to remain in the courtroom during the hearing and found that substantial and competent evidence supported the magistrate court’s decision to vest legal custody of the children in IDHW. The Court also declined to consider the parents' argument under the Idaho Parental Rights Act because it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "IDHW v. Doe" on Justia Law

In June 2016, Peter Franklin Goullette was driving with his child in the backseat when he struck and killed Kathy Stelzer and severely injured Zualita Updike, who were walking on the road. Goullette admitted to officers that he was attempting to buckle his son back in when he struck the victims. He was charged with vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving. Goullette entered a guilty plea while maintaining his innocence, known as an Alford plea. He later appealed his conviction, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it accepted his guilty plea because it failed to inquire into the factual basis of his guilty plea.The case was first heard in the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bonner County, where Goullette was convicted. He then appealed to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction. Goullette subsequently filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed Goullette's conviction. The court held that the district court did not err in accepting Goullette’s Alford plea because the record as a whole demonstrated that Goullette entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea. The court also held that the district court did not err by failing to revisit the validity of Goullette’s plea at sentencing because the district court was not presented with evidence raising an obvious doubt as to Goullette’s guilt. View "State v. Goullette" on Justia Law

In this case, Develin Johnson appealed against the district court's decision that upheld his convictions for domestic battery and false imprisonment. The key issue in the appeal was the admissibility of Johnson's previous misdemeanor conviction for petit theft under Idaho Rule of Evidence 608(b) and whether the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Johnson argued that the district court erred in affirming the judgment of conviction because his misdemeanor conviction for theft was inadmissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 608(b) and the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the conduct leading to Johnson's 2013 misdemeanor conviction was probative of his character for truthfulness and that the prejudicial effect of the evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law