Jane Doe and John Doe I v. John Doe (2025-23)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53028

In the Matter of: John Doe II, A Child )
Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. ) Filed: November 7, 2025
----------------------------------------------------- )
JANE DOE and JOHN DOE I, ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
)
Petitioners-Respondents, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
v. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
JOHN DOE (2025-23), )
)
Respondent-Appellant. )

Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Second Judicial
District, State of Idaho, Idaho County. Hon. Jeff P. Payne, Magistrate.

Judgment of the magistrate court terminating parental rights, affirmed.

Dickison Law Firm; Gregory C. Dickison, Moscow, for appellant.

Summer A. Emmert, Cottonwood, for respondents.
________________________________________________

GRATTON, Chief Judge
John Doe (2025-23) appeals from the magistrate court’s judgment terminating his parental
rights to John Doe II (Child). We affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2017, Mother and Doe had a sexual relationship which resulted in Child being born.
While in jail, Mother found out that she was pregnant; Mother let Doe know he could be the father.
Doe was not listed as Child’s father on Child’s birth certificate. Doe was incarcerated in 2018
when Child was born and was not released from prison until April 2021.
When Doe was released from prison, Child was three years old; Doe expressed an interest
in being a part of Child’s life. Doe arranged and paid for an at-home paternity test; the test results
showed Doe is Child’s father. As part of Mother and Doe’s agreement for Doe to be in Child’s
life, Doe could not tell Child he was Child’s father. Doe had about five or six contacts with Mother,

1
Mother’s husband, and Child. There were also four or five unplanned visits in the community.
Doe’s last contact with Child was around February 2022.
In April 2022, Doe notified Mother that he was going to Salt Lake City for work. Doe
wanted to see Child before he left. Mother refused to allow contact between Child and Doe
because she believed Doe relapsed. Doe denied relapsing but testified at trial he had relapsed once.
In approximately May 2022, Doe told Mother he intended to initiate a court proceeding due to
Mother’s refusal to allow Doe to see Child. Doe never initiated a court proceeding. Upon Doe’s
return from Salt Lake City, Doe did not have any in-person contact with Child.
In March 2023, Doe again was incarcerated. While in prison, Doe made Child a blanket,
which Doe’s mother delivered to Child in October 2023. When Doe’s mother delivered the blanket
to Child, Doe spoke briefly to Child in an unplanned telephone call. Beyond this contact, Doe has
had no contact with Child.
Doe is currently incarcerated. Child has been living with Mother and Mother’s husband
since Child was one month old. Mother filed a petition for termination of Doe’s parental rights
and adoption of Child by Mother’s husband. Doe filed a petition for paternity the following month.
The magistrate court found that Doe had abandoned Child. Idaho Code § 16-2005(1)(a). The
magistrate court also determined that termination is in Child’s best interests. The magistrate court
entered judgment terminating Doe’s parental rights to Child. Doe appeals.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal from a decision terminating parental rights, this Court examines whether the
decision is supported by substantial and competent evidence, which means such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243,
245-46, 220 P.3d 1062, 1064-65 (2009). The appellate court will indulge all reasonable inferences
in support of the trial court’s judgment when reviewing an order that parental rights be terminated.
Id. The Idaho Supreme Court has also said that the substantial evidence test requires a greater
quantum of evidence in cases where the trial court’s finding must be supported by clear and
convincing evidence than in cases where a mere preponderance is required. In re Doe, 143 Idaho
343, 346, 144 P.3d 597, 600 (2006). Clear and convincing evidence is generally understood to be
evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain. In re Doe,

2
143 Idaho 188, 191, 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006). Further, the magistrate’s decision must be
supported by objectively supportable grounds. In re Doe, 143 Idaho at 346, 144 P.3d at 600.
III.
ANALYSIS
Doe argues the magistrate court erred by finding clear and convincing evidence
demonstrating grounds for termination based on abandonment and in finding that termination of
Doe’s parental rights is in the best interests of Child. Specifically, Doe asserts the magistrate court
erred by ignoring evidence of Mother’s lack of effort to inform Doe of Child and Mother’s refusal
to allow contact between Doe and Child. Doe argues that the magistrate court erred in finding that
the failure by Doe to maintain a normal parent-child relationship with Child was willful and
without just cause.
A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a relationship with his or her
child. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758, 760, 53 P.3d 341,
343 (2002). This interest is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 842, 172 P.3d 1114, 1117 (2007). Implicit in the
Termination of Parent and Child Relationship Act is the philosophy that, wherever possible, family
life should be strengthened and preserved. I.C. § 16-2001(2). Therefore, the requisites of due
process must be met when terminating the parent-child relationship. State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 383,
386, 146 P.3d 649, 652 (2006). Due process requires that the grounds for terminating a parent-
child relationship be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Because a fundamental liberty
interest is at stake, the United States Supreme Court has determined that a court may terminate a
parent-child relationship only if that decision is supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769 (1982); see also I.C. § 16-2009; In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759,
761-62, 203 P.3d 689, 691-92 (2009); Doe, 143 Idaho at 386, 146 P.3d at 652.
Idaho Code § 16-2005 permits a party to petition the court for termination of the parent-
child relationship when it is in the child’s best interests and any one of the following five factors
exist: (a) abandonment; (b) neglect or abuse; (c) lack of a biological relationship between the child
and a presumptive parent; (d) the parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities for a
prolonged period that will be injurious to the health, morals, or well-being of the child; or (e) the
parent is incarcerated and will remain incarcerated for a substantial period of time. Each statutory
ground is an independent basis for termination. Doe, 144 Idaho at 842, 172 P.3d at 1117. Once a

3
statutory ground for termination has been established, the trial court must next determine whether
it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent-child relationship. In re Aragon, 120
Idaho 606, 611, 818 P.2d 310, 315 (1991).
In this case, the magistrate court terminated Doe’s parental rights on the ground of
abandonment, I.C. § 16-2005(1)(a). A child is abandoned when “the parent has willfully failed to
maintain a normal parental relationship, including but not limited to reasonable support or regular
personal contact.” I.C. § 16-2002(5). The word “or” is a disjunctive particle used to express an
alternative and, thus, the willful failure to maintain a normal parental relationship can be based
upon either the failure to pay reasonable support, or the failure to have regular personal contact, or
some other failure. Doe I v. Doe II (2009-02), 148 Idaho 713, 715, 228 P.3d 980, 982 (2010).
When a parent fails to maintain a normal parental relationship without just cause for a
period of one year, prima facie evidence of abandonment exists. I.C. § 16-2002(5). There is no
universal standard for what constitutes a normal parental relationship, and whether such a
relationship exists depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Doe v. Doe, 150 Idaho
46, 50, 244 P.3d 190, 194 (2010). The petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate
that the parent lacks a normal parental relationship with the child and that there is no just cause for
the failure to maintain such a relationship. Id. If the petitioner is able to meet this burden, the
parent then has the burden of production to present evidence of just cause. Id. If the magistrate
court finds that just cause has not been established, the petitioning party has met its burden of
persuasion. Id.
The key inquiry regarding “willfulness” is whether a parent is capable of maintaining a
normal parental relationship with the child. Doe v. Doe (2013-14), 155 Idaho 505, 508, 314 P.3d
187, 190 (2013). When a parent does not provide reasonable support without just cause, that by
itself, is sufficient to establish abandonment. Doe I v. Doe II, 161 Idaho 532, 536, 387 P.3d 785,
789 (2016). For this reason, a trial court will inquire into whether a parent is capable of paying
support or providing reasonable financial support based on the parent’s circumstances. In the
Matter of Doe II, 165 Idaho 199, 203, 443 P.3d 213, 217 (2019). As the Idaho Supreme Court has
also stated, “[f]or one to willfully fail to do something, he or she must have the ability to do it.”
Doe I (2009-02), 148 Idaho at 716, 228 P.3d at 993. If a parent is legally prohibited from seeing
and contacting their child, then they do not have the ability to maintain a normal parent-child
relationship and the abandonment cannot be willful. Doe (2013-14), 155 Idaho at 508, 314 P.3d

4
at 190; Doe I (2009-02), 148 Idaho at 718, 228 P.3d at 985. A parent has some degree of
responsibility to acquire visitation through the court system if the child’s custodian is not allowing
contact. Doe (2013-14), 155 Idaho at 509, 314 P.3d at 191. If the parent must secure visitation
through the courts, then the failure to pursue such avenue indicates a willful failure to maintain a
normal parental relationship. Id. at 508-10, 314 P.3d at 190-92.
The magistrate court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother established Doe
abandoned Child based on Doe’s willfully failing to maintain a normal parent-child relationship,
without just cause, by failing to provide financial support, and by failing to have contact with Child
over several years of Child’s life. Doe does not claim to have even attempted to provide support
for Child during that timeframe, or reasons for not providing financial support. At trial, Doe
received questioning regarding his failure to provide financial support on behalf of Child.
MOTHER’S COUNSEL: You never paid any support for [Child], correct?
DOE: No. I was told that they didn’t want it.
MOTHER’S COUNSEL: Did you attempt to pay anyway?
DOE: No, I did not.
Doe simply chose to not provide or offer to provide financial support for Child at any time during
Child’s life, both while incarcerated and when released and employed. Mother testified that the
only discussion about financial support was simply in reference to Doe obtaining a paternity test
and seeking to avoid paying court-ordered financial support. The magistrate court ultimately
concluded in its findings of facts, “[Doe] has not provided financial support for [Child] and has
failed to do what he can to provide financial support for [Child].” Doe does not contest the
magistrate court’s findings or conclusions based on failure to provide financial support. As noted
above, the willful failure to maintain a normal parental relationship can be based upon either the
failure to pay reasonable support, or the failure to have regular personal contact, or some other
failure. Doe I, 148 Idaho at 715, 228 P.3d at 982. The magistrate court’s determination that Doe
failed to provide reasonable support at any point in Child’s life is supported by clear and
convincing evidence in the record and, alone, is sufficient to uphold the magistrate court’s finding
of abandonment.
The magistrate court also found that Doe failed to maintain a normal parental relationship
with Child. Doe has not had consistent personal contact with Child. Since Doe has been

5
incarcerated, Doe has had almost no contact with Child.1 Even when Doe was out of jail in 2021,
Doe had inconsistent and sporadic contact with Child. Doe claims that he could not have known
what Mother’s or Child’s circumstances were when he first went to prison in 2018 because Mother
made no contact with Doe until after Child’s birth. In addition, Doe claims the notice he did
receive about Child was simply that Doe may be Child’s father while Mother was still incarcerated.
Doe does not explain why he did not reach out to Mother while he was incarcerated between 2018
and 2021. Doe has had no in-person contact with Child, and as previously mentioned, only one
unplanned phone conversation when Doe’s mother delivered the blanket to Child. Subsequently,
Doe has not sent letters or cards or had any other communication with Child.
Doe claims his lack of contact was due to Mother cutting him off from seeing Child based
on concerns about him relapsing. However, that occurred in 2022, and Doe told Mother he would
be initiating a court proceeding to see Child but never did. Doe was not incarcerated again until
May 2023. Doe claimed to Mother that he had not relapsed but acknowledged at trial he had
relapsed on one occasion. Doe never initiated any court proceedings until Mother sought to
terminate Doe’s parental rights. Doe has not attempted any methods of communication or contact
since his latest incarceration, beyond providing the blanket. Even when Doe was out of jail, his
contact with Child was neither regular nor consistent. There is no testimony presented as to why
Doe did not seek court assistance to establish his parental rights. Further, there is no testimony
from Doe explaining his lack of attempts of communication (cards or letters) with Child during
his current incarceration period. The magistrate court found that Doe’s life circumstances are the
product of his choosing and do not excuse his failure to maintain a normal relationship with Child.
Substantial and competent evidence in the record supports the magistrate court’s finding by clear
and convincing evidence that Doe abandoned Child by willfully failing to maintain a normal
parental relationship without just cause.
Once a statutory ground for termination has been established, the trial court must next
determine whether it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent-child relationship.
In re Aragon, 120 Idaho at 611, 818 P.2d at 315. The best interests analysis is an expansive
analysis with no set list of factors a court must consider. Matter of Doe, 164 Idaho 511, 516, 432
P.3d 60, 65 (2018). In In re Doe, 159 Idaho 192, 198, 358 P.3d 77, 83 (2015), the Court stated:

1
Only when Doe’s mother was delivering a blanket to Child did Doe have a brief interaction
with Child on the phone. It was not coordinated by Mother.

6
[S]ome important considerations that apply here include: parent’s history with
substance abuse, whether the parent has provided financial support, the child’s
relationship with those currently caring for him or her and whether the child has
improved under that care, the child’s need for stability and certainty, and the
parent’s incarceration. Idaho Dep’t of Health and Welfare v. Doe, 253 Idaho 797,
803, 275 P.3d 23, 29 (Ct. App. 2012); In re Doe, 157 Idaho at 772, 339 P.3d at
1176.
The magistrate court found:
In this case, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that
termination of [Doe’s] parental rights is in [Child’s] best interest. [Doe] and [Child]
have no parent/child relationship or bond and [Child] does not even know that
[Doe] is his father; [Mother’s] husband has been in [Child’s] life since [Child] was
one month old and has fulfilled the role as [Child’s] father since that time.
[Doe] has not had any significant role in [Child’s] life and [Child] is almost
eight years old and doesn’t know [Doe] is his father.
[Doe] has not provided any support for [Child] since [Child] was born.
[Doe] has not made any meaningful or successful effort to improve his
situation in life since [Child] was born so that he could provide for [Child’s] needs
and fulfill a parental role in [Child’s] life.
Doe does not challenge the magistrate court’s determination that termination is in Child’s best
interests. Therefore, we hold the magistrate court did not err by concluding that termination of
Doe’s parental rights due to abandonment is in Child’s best interests.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Substantial and competent evidence supports the magistrate court’s finding that Doe
abandoned Child, and that termination is in Child’s best interests. Accordingly, the magistrate
court’s judgment terminating Doe’s parental rights is affirmed.
Judge HUSKEY and Judge TRIBE CONCUR.

7