Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
BURDICK, Justice.
John Doe, biological father of Jane Doe (“Jane”), appeals the magistrate court’s decision that he never perfected any parental rights to Jane and that, if he did have parental rights, his rights are terminated on grounds of abandonment, neglect and Jane’s best interest. John Doe argues that he did not know he was Jane’s biological father until he was served with the termination papers, from which point he has acted in a manner entitling him to parental rights. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Jane is the youngest of four children born to Jane Doe II (“Mother”).…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lehr v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Caban v. MohammedSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Doe v. RoeIdaho Supreme Court · 2005
- Steve B.D. v. SwanIdaho Supreme Court · 1986
3Cited by6 opinions
- Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. DoeIdaho Supreme Court · 2014
- Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. DoeIdaho Supreme Court · 2017
- Termination of Parental Rights of John Doe (2014-25)Idaho Supreme Court · 2015
- Doe v. Idaho Department of Health and WelfareIdaho Supreme Court · 2013
- H&W v. Jane Doe (2016-32)Idaho Supreme Court · 2017
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.