State v. Doe

555 P.3d 1091

In the Matter of: Child I, Child II, Child III, Child IV, and Child V, Children Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.

STATE of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.Jane DOE (2024-04), Respondent-Appellant.

In the Matter of: Child I, Child II, Child III, Child IV, and Child V, Children Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.

State of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.John Doe (2024-05), Respondent-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 51562 & 51565

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2024 Term.

Opinion Filed: September 6, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bannock County. Anson L. Call, Magistrate Judge.

The adjudicatory decree of the magistrate court is affirmed.

Willis Law Office, PLLC, Pocatello, for Appellant Jane Doe. R. Bradley Willis submitted argument on the briefs.

Parrish Law Office, Pocatello, for Appellant John Doe. Craig W. Parrish submitted argument on the briefs.

Stephen F. Herzog, Bannock County Prosecutor, for Respondent State of Idaho. Alan J. Boehme submitted argument on the briefs.

Raúl R. Labrador, Idaho Attorney General, for Respondent Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Jason R. Chandler submitted argument on the supplemental brief.

David R. Martinez, Chief Bannock County Public Defender, for Respondents Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III, Jane Doe IV, and John Doe I. Jessalyn R. Hopkin submitted argument on the briefs.

BRODY, Justice.

This is a consolidated appeal that arose from a Child Protection Act proceeding. Jane Doe ("Mother") and John Doe ("Father") (collectively, "Parents") are the biological parents of five minor children. In 2023, the State removed the children from the Parents’ home following allegations of physical abuse. Thereafter, the magistrate court vested temporary custody of the children with the Department of Health and Welfare ("IDHW") following a shelter care hearing, and, again, after an adjudicatory hearing. Parents appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the initial emergency removal of the children. Parents also challenge the magistrate court’s orders vesting custody of the children with IDHW following the shelter care and adjudicatory hearings. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the magistrate court’s adjudicatory decree.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Mother and Father are the biological parents of five minor children who ranged in age from approximately sixteen years old to fourteen months old at the time of the proceedings at issue: Child I (age 16), Child II (age 15), Child III (age 13), Child IV (age 9), and Child V (age approximately 14 months old) (collectively, "the Children"). In 2021, the family moved to Idaho after it was revealed that Child I, Child II, and Child III were sexually abused by two other adult male family members over an extended period of time. The record is unclear as to whether Child IV was also subject to sexual abuse by the same family members.

On December 5, 2023, law enforcement from the Bannock Country Sheriff’s Office arrived at the Parents’ home in response to a report of an altercation between Mother and Child I. Law enforcement spoke with Child I, who explained that Mother had struck her upper arms with a small, plastic baby clothes hanger after Child I refused to help fold laundry. Law enforcement photographed Child I’s upper arms, which had "red raised marks", and took possession of a broken plastic clothes hanger identified by family members as the one that was used on Child I. Law enforcement then spoke with Mother, who admitted to hitting Child I with the hanger twice. Child I subsequently informed law enforcement that she was hit "approximately four times with the hanger."

Law enforcement also spoke with Child II, Child III, and Child IV, who each stated that they were often hit with belts, hands, or other objects. Child II also disclosed that, on the previous night, Father had become angry and pushed her down on the bed causing her to hit her head. Law enforcement also learned that Child V, a toddler, was physically disciplined by having his hands struck when he misbehaved. Thereafter, law enforcement declared the Children to be in imminent danger and removed them from the home.

The day after removal, the Bannock County Prosecutor’s Office filed a petition under the Child Protective Act ("CPA"), requesting that the Children be placed in the legal custody of IDHW. The petition was supported by an affidavit from the assigned social service worker for IDHW and a police report from the Bannock Country Sheriff’s Office. This affidavit stated that the social service worker observed marks and bruises on both arms and the left shoulder of Child I and that she had taken photos of these injuries. The affidavit also stated that Parents "admitted to law enforcement that they use[d] a belt to discipline" the Children. However, during a subsequent adjudicatory hearing, Parents testified that they stopped using a belt to discipline Child I, Child II, and Child III after moving to Idaho, and Father testified that they had never used a belt to discipline Child IV and V. The affidavit further stated that there was "an unsuccessful attempt to find suitable relatives in the area for placement."

The magistrate court held a -shelter care hearing the day after the CPA petition was filed. During the hearing, the State requested that the Children remain in shelter care or, in event that the Children were returned home, that the magistrate court appoint the Children’s grandmother as a safety monitor in Parent’s home during the "waking hours." A social worker with IDHW expressed concern that such an arrangement would not be realistic long term:

[A]t this time if they do go home, then we would like it to be under protective supervision with a safety monitor, like [State’s counsel] said. I’m just not quite sure how realistic it would be with a safety monitor. The family did identify grandma … but it would have to be a safety monitor that’s in the home basically 24/7 when the kids are there because the physical discipline or altercations are happening, it sounds like, at unpredictable times, and so they need someone to be there with them. So I’m just not quite sure how realistic that would be long term. So that’s my only concern with sending the kids home.

Children’s counsel informed the magistrate court that the three oldest children did not want to go home, even if their grandmother was present as a safety monitor, and represented that the physical discipline had been increasing in past months and was happening almost daily:

The report that I’m getting from the kids is that there’s a lot of yelling, a lot of arguing in the home, and that the physical portion of that has escalated in the past month or two; that there’s physical things happening in the home weekly, if not daily, at this point, and they just don’t feel comfortable going home. They are afraid that if they go home and … there’s nothing in place, I think even with a safety assessor — I asked them about whether if grandma’s there they feel more comfortable, and they still stated no.

However, Children’s counsel also represented that the oldest three children believed that Child V "would be fine in the home."

Parents objected to the State’s request for shelter care. Mother’s counsel argued that this was a case of parental discipline that fell within Parents’ fundamental right to discipline the Children. However, Mother’s counsel also acknowledged that this case fell "somewhere more in the gray area" on the "spectrum of perfect parenting and illegal parenting":

I think what we have here is a case of parental discipline, which, as the [c]ourt is aware, parents have a fundamental right to the control and discipline of their children. While on the spectrum of perfect parenting and illegal parenting, this seems to fall somewhere more in the gray area in between with an out-of-control teenager that is pushing the boundaries at home, escalat-ing things, and now the teenager and her friend have escalated to making police reports based upon the discipline and the failure to follow the rules in the home.

At the end of the hearing, the magistrate court, ruling from the bench, found reasonable cause to believe that the children came within the jurisdiction of the CPA due to abuse or an unstable home environment. Initially, the magistrate court detailed the evidence it considered in reaching its conclusion. The magistrate court noted, based on the testimony presented and the judge’s own observations, that the Children were "fearful to return home at this point in time," but that it could not "determine whether that’s simply based on the fact that they misbehave and are wanting to avoid appropriate discipline for their behaviors or whether that discipline has gone beyond what is appropriate." The magistrate court also noted that Child I reported being struck by a belt during a different incident and that photographs of bruising resulting from that incident had been submitted with the police report; however, the magistrate court declined to consider these photographs because they were submitted as part of an email that the magistrate court had not seen. The magistrate court also expressed concerns about the report that Father had pushed Child II "down on the bed causing her to hit her head" but noted that the lack of information concerning the circumstances and the severity of this incident prevented a "full determination" on that matter. Still, based on the affidavit, police report, and testimony given during the hearing, the magistrate court concluded that, "it does appear that at least at times" that the injuries suffered by the children "exceeded what would be appropriate" and it was clear that "there’s significant conflict in the home."

What is clear to me is there’s significant conflict in the home. The children, the older children, don’t feel safe in the home right now.

...