Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

John Doe has a long history of drug use, and a somewhat troubled family history. He started using methamphetamine in his early teens and has continued using methamphetamine consistently for the past twenty-plus years. Doe's his parents placed him in an inpatient drug treatment facility. In his later teens, he went to another treatment as part of a juvenile proceeding. When the second treatment center wanted to send Doe to a treatment facility in Salt Lake City, he ran away. When Doe was approximately 27 years old, he moved to California and, around 2005, served a year in prison for making terrorist threats. He participated in more drug treatment while in prison. After successfully completing his parole, he moved back to Idaho. Doe and L.E.’s mother had been together about a year and a half when L.E. was born in December 2011. The following month, Doe was arrested for possession of methamphetamine, spent several months in jail before being released on bond, and was later convicted. Doe was also charged with several misdemeanor offenses arising from the same incident; under a plea agreement, he was convicted of two. Doe then entered his third drug treatment program, as he was sentenced to a CAPP Rider, a three-month program that includes drug treatment. He completed that program successfully. He was serving the Rider when L.E. came into the care of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (“IDHW”) through an emergency removal. The State filed a petition under the Child Protective Act. L.E.’s mother had left her with family members, then disappeared. L.E. was placed in temporary shelter care until a hearing at which the parties stipulated that L.E. lacked a stable home environment and stipulated to placement in IDHW’s custody. After a hearing, the magistrate entered a case plan, notifying the parents that failure to comply with the plan could result in termination of parental rights. Doe would enter treatment programs two more times before the magistrate overseeing L.E.'s case changed the permanency plan to a goal of termination of parental rights and adoption. Doe appealed the ultimate decision terminating his rights as to L.E. But the Supreme Court found substantial evidence entered in the trial court record to support termination. The Court affirmed the termination. View "Termination of Parental Rights of John Doe (2015-01)" on Justia Law

Judy and Dennis Charney were divorced in March 2012. In May, Dennis commenced proceedings against Judy alleging multiple counts of contempt for allegedly violating provisions of the property settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the divorce judgment. Judy denied the allegations and the matter was set for an evidentiary hearing to commence on April 11, 2013. On March 28, 2013, Dennis filed a motion to dismiss the contempt proceedings, which was heard April 9, 2013. The magistrate court asked Judy's attorney whether there was any objection to the motion, and he stated that there was not, but it should be dismissed with prejudice. The court stated that the dismissal would be without prejudice unless the parties agreed that it was with prejudice. Dennis's attorney stated that he did not anticipate the contempt proceedings being refiled, but did not have the authority to agree to a dismissal with prejudice. The court then stated that the dismissal would be without prejudice. The court entered an order dismissing the contempt proceedings the following day. Several days later, Judy moved for attorney fees and costs. Dennis objected, and the matter was argued in July. The magistrate court entered a judgment finding that Judy was the prevailing party in the contempt proceedings and awarded her attorney fees. Dennis challenged the award of attorney fees. The district court ultimately affirmed the award of attorney fees. Approximately two years after Dennis first brought proceedings against Judy, he appealed the affirmance of fees to the Supreme Court. Finding no abuse of discretion in the award of fees, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Charney v. Charney" on Justia Law

Doe and C.C.’s mother (Mother) are the biological parents of C.C., who was born in 2008. Doe, Mother, and C.C. are all members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation (Tribes). Doe and Mother were never married, but lived together sporadically during the initial portion of C.C.’s life until Mother ended the relationship in 2010. In July of 2010, Doe shot Mother in front of C.C. Doe pleaded guilty to Attempted First Degree Murder and was sentenced to serve fifteen years, with nine years fixed. He was not eligible for parole until July of 2019. Mother married C.C.’s stepfather on October 15, 2010. Stepfather was also a member of the Tribes. The issue in this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on a magistrate court’s judgment terminating John Doe’s parental rights and allowing C.C. to be adopted. Doe argued that the magistrate court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Termination of Parental Rights of John Doe (2014-25)" on Justia Law

John Doe and his wife had two children born during their marriage. They later divorced, and the children’s mother died from strangulation in 2011. Doe was arrested and charged with murder in connection with her death. He had been held in custody since his arrest. A jury found John Doe guilty of murder in the first degree, for which he was sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole during the first twenty-five years. He appealed his conviction. The children’s maternal grandparents were appointed their temporary guardians, and filed this action to terminate John Doe’s parental rights. While Doe was still appealing his sentence for murder, the guardians filed an amended petition adding a claim to adopt the children. The magistrate court tried the claim to terminate John Doe’s parental rights. The court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order finding that termination of John Doe’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children and that three statutory conditions existed justifying the termination. Doe then timely appealed. In 2015, the Supreme Court entered a decision vacating the jury verdict finding John Doe guilty of murder and his judgment of conviction because the district judge wrongly excluded evidence that the jury could have found corroborated his testimony that he did not kill the children’s mother. Because the judgment was based solely upon the jury verdict finding John Doe guilty of murdering the children’s mother and his judgment of conviction, both of which were vacated on his appeal in the criminal case, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment terminating his parental rights and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Dept. of Health & Welfare v. John Doe (2014-26)" on Justia Law

Appellant Matthew Lamont and Respondent Krissy Lamont were married and have two minor children. After the divorce, Krissy was granted primary physical custody of the children, and until recently Krissy and Matthew resided in Salmon, Idaho. In June of 2014, however, Matthew learned that Krissy planned to relocate with the children to Meridian, Idaho. He filed a petition in magistrate court to modify the divorce decree to obtain primary physical custody of the children. Krissy filed a cross-petition to relocate the children to Meridian. After a hearing, the magistrate court denied Matthew’s motion and granted Krissy’s motion. Matthew appealed, but finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Lamont v. Lamont" on Justia Law

This case was brought before a magistrate court as a request for modification of the child custody arrangement of the parties' four children. Hilary Firmage (formerly, Snow) sought sole custody and permission to relocate. The parties orally stipulated to resolve the custody matter in favor of the future recommendations that would result from a child custody evaluation that was ongoing at that time. When the evaluation was made available, the magistrate court ordered a custody modification conforming to the evaluator's recommendations. Howard Snow appealed the modification order. Finding no abuse of discretion in the modification order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Firmage v. Snow" on Justia Law

Because no final judgment dissolving the marriage and no judgment regarding custody had ever been entered in this divorce action during the four-year period after the divorce trial, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it did not qualify for an appeal by permission. After the appeal was dismissed, the magistrate court entered a partial judgment purporting to retroactively divorce the parties four years earlier and a partial judgment regarding custody and the division of property and debts. The appellant then filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the order dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court denied that motion, vacated the partial judgment retroactively terminating the parties’ marriage, and direct the magistrate court to enter a new partial judgment dissolving their marriage. View "Cook v. Arias" on Justia Law

Jane Doe’s three-year-old son was found wandering in a truck stop parking lot, where trucks were entering and leaving. He had walked from a recreational vehicle 1.9 miles away, where Jane Doe and her boyfriend were living. When the police went to the recreational vehicle, they observed that there was insufficient food appropriate for a child. Jane Doe gave conflicting accounts as to why the child had been unsupervised. The police declared the child in imminent danger and took him into shelter care. The following day, proceedings involving the child were commenced under the Child Protective Act. The Department of Health and Welfare filed a case plan which set forth tasks to be accomplished by Jane Doe for the purpose of reuniting Jane Doe with her son. The attempt at reunification was not successful, and the Department filed a petition to terminate Jane Doe’s parental rights in her son. Finding that Jane Doe failed to show that the magistrate court erred in terminating her parental rights, the Supreme Court affirmed termination. View "Dept of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (2014-22)" on Justia Law

Jane Doe appealed an order terminating her parental rights to her son, TSD. Because TSD was an "Indian child" as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act, the magistrate court was required to make findings in addition to those required by Idaho law. Among other findings, the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) was required to satisfy the court that it made "active efforts" to "prevent the breakup of the Indian family." On appeal, Doe argued that the magistrate court erred in finding that DHW made such efforts and erred in failing to make that finding by clear and convincing evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court's decision terminating Doe's parental rights. View "In re Termination of Parental Rights of Jane (2014-23) Doe" on Justia Law

John and Jane Doe are the biological father and mother of two boys: B.D., born in 2008, and T.D., born in 2011. Doe and Jane Doe divorced in 2009. This appeal centered on the termination of John Doe’s parental rights. Beginning July 12, 2012, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare began working with Doe to address continuing safety concerns for the children. These concerns included: lack of supervision, neglect, and physical abuse. There were times when Doe did not know the whereabouts of the children, could not provide the names of occupants of his residence, and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. A service provider, Northwest Neurobehavioral, reported that B.D. had been missing counseling and speech therapy appointments. Later that year, Doe tested positive for methamphetamine. The issues this case presented on appeal to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether there was substantial and competent evidence that Doe neglected his children; and (2) whether the magistrate court erred when it found termination of Doe’s parental rights to be in the best interest of Doe’s children. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Termination of Parental Rights of John Doe (2014-15)" on Justia Law