IDHW v. John Doe

── IDHW v. John Doe ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 53581 In the Matter of: John Doe I, A Child ) Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. ) STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF ) HEALTH AND WELFARE, ) Filed: April 15, 2026 ) Petitioner-Respondent, ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk ) v. ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY JOHN DOE (2025-49), ) ) Respondent-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Boundary County. Hon. Justin W. Julian, Magistrate. Judgment terminating parental rights, affirmed. Gregory Dickison, Conflict Public Defender, Moscow, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Jennifer Fegert, Deputy Attorney General, Coeur d’Alene, for respondent. ________________________________________________ HUSKEY, Judge John Doe (Doe) appeals from the magistrate court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to John Doe I (Child). Doe argues the magistrate court erred in terminating his parental rights because he has maintained a parent-child relationship with Child and denies he will likely be incarcerated for a substantial period of time while Child is a minor. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (Department) argues there is substantial and competent evidence supporting the magistrate court’s findings that Doe neglected Child and that terminating Doe’s parental rights is in the best interests of Child. We affirm the magistrate court’s judgment terminating Doe’s parental rights. 1  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Doe is the biological father of Child.1 This case began when a citizen found Child on a county road unattended by an adult, shoeless, and wearing only a diaper on a 90-degree day. The citizen alerted law enforcement to the abandoned toddler. When law enforcement arrived, Child indicated the direction he came from by pointing at a nearby residence. Law enforcement contacted Child’s grandmother at the residence. Child’s grandmother stated that a third party, who was also at the residence, was supposed to be supervising Child. When law enforcement contacted that individual, she confirmed she had watched Child the night before until he fell asleep. She indicated Doe was supposed to have picked Child up the next morning, but he had not. At the time, Child’s mother was incarcerated, and Doe was working nearly eighty-five miles away. Law enforcement observed that Child was very dirty, dehydrated, and hungry. Based upon the statements by Child’s grandmother, law enforcement determined Child appeared to have been unsupervised for an extended period of time and Child could be seriously injured if left at the residence. Law enforcement subsequently sheltered Child based on these observations. At the adjudicatory hearing, Doe stipulated that Child fell within the purview of the Child Protective Act (CPA) due to an unstable home environment. A case plan for Doe’s reunification with Child was ordered by the magistrate court. One of the case plan tasks required Doe to comply with the terms of his probation. During the CPA case, Doe was arrested for violating the terms of his probation and his sentence was imposed; Doe was incarcerated throughout the remainder of the CPA case and termination trial. Subsequently, the Department moved to termi