Jane Doe v. John Doe

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court addresses whether indigent parents in privately initiated termination-of-parental-rights proceedings have a statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel, including on appeal. The court holds that the former version of Idaho Code section 16-2009 did not create a statutory right to appellate counsel, while the current statute may require appointed counsel on a case-by-case basis under due process principles. The court also addresses responsibility for appellate records, transcripts, and related costs, concluding that necessary appellate materials must be provided at public expense.

Holdings

1. The version of Idaho Code section 16-2009 in effect in 2023 provided an indigent parent a statutory right to counsel at the termination hearing before the magistrate court, but did not extend that statutory right to an appeal.
2. Due process may require appointment of counsel at public expense for an indigent parent opposing a privately initiated termination of parental rights, but counsel is not categorically required. The determination must be made case by case by the magistrate court after a hearing applying the Lassiter and Mathews v. Eldridge factors.
3. When a magistrate court determines under Lassiter that an indigent parent is entitled to counsel in a termination proceeding, the parent is also entitled to appointed counsel on appeal from the judgment terminating the parent-child relationship.
4. Private termination proceedings involve sufficient state action to trigger procedural due process protections, even though the petition is filed by a private party.
5. After the 2025 amendments to Idaho Code section 19-6009, neither the State Public Defender nor Idaho counties can be required by that statute to provide representation in private termination cases, although either may do so voluntarily. The statutory gap does not eliminate the parent's constitutional due-process right, and a termination judgment entered without constitutionally required counsel may be vacated or subject to collateral attack.
6. Every indigent parent appealing from a judgment terminating the parent-child relationship is constitutionally entitled to the record and transcripts necessary for meaningful appellate review at public expense, regardless of whether the termination was privately initiated or whether the parent is entitled to appointed counsel.
7. When an indigent parent appealing a termination judgment is not represented at public expense, the record and transcripts necessary for appeal must be provided at public expense, with the costs paid from the district court fund of the county in which the action was filed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prior version of Idaho Code section 16-2009 provided an indigent parent in a private termination case with a statutory right to appointed counsel on appeal.
2. Whether due process may require appointment of counsel at public expense for an indigent parent opposing a privately initiated termination of parental rights.
3. Whether an indigent parent determined to be constitutionally entitled to counsel at the termination hearing is also entitled to appointed counsel on appeal.
4. Whether private termination proceedings involve sufficient state action to trigger procedural due process protections.
5. Whether the State Public Defender or Idaho counties have a statutory obligation to provide constitutionally required representation in private termination cases after the 2025 amendments to Idaho Code section 19-6009.
6. Whether an indigent parent appealing a judgment terminating parental rights is constitutionally entitled to the record and transcripts necessary for meaningful appellate review at public expense.
7. Whether county district court funds must bear the cost of appellate records and transcripts when an indigent parent is not represented at public expense.

Disposition

remanded