# State v. Doe > Idaho Supreme Court · September 25, 2006 · 143 Idaho 343 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786948 ## Case - **Full name:** In the Matter of Jane DOE and Others: Children Under Eighteen Years of Age. State of Idaho, Petitioner-Respondent, v. John Doe, Respondent-Appellant - **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court - **Decided:** September 25, 2006 - **Citations:** 143 Idaho 343; 144 P.3d 597; 2006 Ida. LEXIS 126 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jones - **Judges:** Trout, Eismann, Burdick, Jones, Schroeder - **Cited by:** 355 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786948 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that the magistrate court’s findings were sufficient and amply supported by the record even if additional details would have been helpful - explaining “Doe was sentenced to probation for felony domestic battery” ## Opinion text Justice JONES, concurring in dissent. I do not claim to be as long in the judicial tooth as Justice Burdick but I agree with the substance of his dissent. Although it may be that Doe is an unsavory person, he has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a parental relationship with Jane. That relationship may not be terminated unless the ground for termination is proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court’s factual findings should be specific to the individual parent whose parental rights are sought to be terminated and demonstrate how pertinent evidence supports them. The trial court is particularly well positioned to perform this task because it can observe the witnesses and evaluate their truthfulness. The trial court serves as the eyes and ears of the appellate system. It should spell out how it arrived at the factual findings. If the findings are deficient, it is difficult to perform the appellate review. That is the situation presented in this case. The trial court had before it a petition to terminate the parental rights of four individuals with regard to four children. Involved were the mother and three different fathers, including Doe. The trial court’s memorandum opinion was a total of seven pages with 2fé pages of factual findings for all four parents. Findings specifically related to Doe and his relationship with Jane consisted of seven sentences. They are as follows: 7. When the family resided with [Doe], [Jane’s older half-sister] felt that she was treated better, but that there was a lot of violence in the home. There had been a particularly nasty incident that had taken place at the time of the birth of [Jane] because of [Doe’s] belief that he may not have been her father. Testimony was that [Doe] was regularly intoxicated.... 11. During the child protection case the Department did nothing to give notice to [Doe]. The department did not communicate with him, involve him in any planning, or investigate the possible family placements with his family. [Doe] is and has been unavailable because of incarceration. He wrote his children and sent them his prison made arts and crafts. Photographs were sent to [Doe] of his children. The trial judge made a generic finding (finding 13) that all four of the parents had failed all four of the children. Since the above findings would not on their own support termination on the basis of neglect, this finding appears to be the one that underpins the termination order. According to the court, when the family was together no combination of parents or parent was capable of (a) providing a stable home environment for the children, (b) providing support for the children, (c) complying with the law and requirements of society, or (d) educating the children and teaching them to be productive law abiding citizens. This finding would have been much more helpful if it had been specific to each parent. Doe was responsible for only one of the children, Jane, and it would have been appropriate to make a finding *351 specifically addressed to the relationship between those two. As Justice Burdick observes, the Department was not particularly helpful in providing evidence bearing specifically on Doe’s relationship with Jane. Faced with little pertinent evidence relative to Doe, and with four parental defendants to act upon, the trial court tended to flock shoot them in finding 13. On appeal, the district court winnowed through the evidence and was able to put together a much better case, as has the majority here. However, a case should not be made on appeal. Rather, it should be made at the trial court level, which did not occur here. Where a fundamental right is involved, we should expect more specifically tailored findings. The Court should reverse the order terminating Doe’s parental rights and remand the ease for further proceedings. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786948. Public record. Not legal advice.