Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 16-1622 (2026)

Review hearings — status hearings — annual permanency hearings.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Review hearings — status hearings — annual permanency hearings.

(1) Review hearing.

(a) A hearing for review of the child’s case and permanency plan shall be held no later than six (6) months after entry of the court’s order taking jurisdiction under this act and every two (2) months thereafter. The department and the guardian ad litem shall file reports to the court no later than five (5) days prior to the two (2) month review hearing. The purpose of the review hearing is:

(i) To determine:

1. The safety of the child;

2. The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement;

3. The extent of compliance with the case plan; and

4. The extent of progress that has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement in foster care;

(ii) To determine or continue to investigate whether the child is an Indian child. If there is reason to believe that the child is an Indian child and there has not been a final determination regarding the child’s status as an Indian child:

1. The department shall document and the court shall inquire about the efforts that have been made since the last hearing to determine whether the child is an Indian child; and

2. The department shall document and the court shall determine that the department is using active efforts to work with all tribes of which the child may be a member to verify whether the child is a member or eligible for membership;

(iii) To inquire regarding the child’s educational stability. The department shall document and the court shall inquire as to the efforts made to ensure educational stability for the child, including the efforts made to keep the child in the school in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement or the reason that remaining in the school is not in the child’s best interests;

(iv) To inquire regarding sibling placement. The department shall document and the court shall inquire whether siblings were placed together or, if siblings were not placed together, the efforts made to place siblings together, the reasons why siblings were not placed together, and a plan for ensuring frequent visitation or ongoing interaction between the siblings, unless visitation or ongoing interaction would be contrary to the safety or well-being of one (1) or more of the siblings;

(v) To inquire regarding permanency. The court shall ask each youth age twelve (12) years and older about his desired permanency outcome and discuss with the youth his current permanency plan. For a youth age fourteen (14) years and older, the hearing shall include a review of the services needed to assist the youth to make the transition from foster care to successful adulthood;

(vi) To document efforts related to the reasonable and prudent parent standard. For a youth whose permanency goal is another planned permanent living arrangement, the department shall document:

1. That the youth’s foster parents or child care institution is following the reasonable and prudent parent standard when deciding whether the child may participate in extracurricular, enrichment, cultural and social activities; and

2. The regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in age- or developmentally appropriate activities that have been provided to the youth;

(vii) To document efforts made to find a permanent placement other than another planned permanent living arrangement. For a youth whose permanency goal is another planned permanent living arrangement, the department shall document:

1. The intensive, ongoing, and, as of the date of the hearing, unsuccessful efforts made to place the youth with a parent, in an adoptive placement, in a guardianship, or in the legal custody of the department in a placement with a fit and willing relative, including an adult sibling; and

2. Why another planned permanent living arrangement is the best permanency plan for the youth and a compelling reason why, as of the date of the review hearing, it would not be in the best interest of the child to be placed permanently with a parent, in an adoptive placement, in a guardianship, or in the legal custody of the department in a placement with a fit and willing relative, including an adult sibling;

(viii) To make findings regarding a permanency goal of another planned permanent living arrangement. For youth whose permanency goal is another planned permanent living arrangement, the court shall make written, case-specific findings, as of the date of the hearing, that:

1. Another planned permanent living arrangement is the best permanency goal for the youth; and

2. There are compelling reasons why it is not in the best interest of the youth to be placed permanently with a parent, in an adoptive placement, in a guardianship, or in the legal custody of the department in a placement with a fit and willing relative, including an adult sibling;

(ix) To document and inquire regarding psychotropic medication. At each review hearing, if the child is being treated with psychotropic medication, these additional requirements shall apply:

1. The department shall report to the court the medication and dosage prescribed for the child and the medical professional who prescribed the medication; and

2. The court shall inquire as to, and may make any additional inquiry relevant to, the use of psychotropic medication; and

(x) To project, when reasonable, a likely date by which the child may be safely returned to and maintained in the home or placed in another permanent placement.

(b) A status hearing is a review hearing that does not address all or most of the purposes identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection and may be held at the discretion of the court. Neither the department nor the guardian ad litem is required to file a report with the court prior to a status hearing, unless ordered otherwise by the court.

(c) A motion for revocation or modification of an order issued under section 16-1619, Idaho Code, may be filed by the department or any party; provided that no motion may be filed by the respondents under this section within three (3) months of a prior hearing on care and placement of the child. Notice of a motion for review of a child’s case shall be provided to the parents and other legal guardians, the prosecuting attorney or deputy attorney general, the guardian ad litem, the attorney for the child, the department and foster parents.

(d) If the motion filed under paragraph (c) of this subsection alleges that the child’s best interests are no longer served by carrying out the order issued under section 16-1619, Idaho Code, or that the department or other authorized agency has failed to provide adequate care for the child, the court shall hold a hearing on the motion.

(e) The department or authorized agency may move the court at any time to vacate any order placing a child in its custody or under its protective supervision.

(2) Permanency plan and hearing.

(a) The permanency plan shall include a permanency goal. The permanency goal may be one (1) of the following: continued efforts at reunification, in the absence of a judicial determination of aggravated circumstances; or termination of parental rights and adoption, guardianship or, for youth age sixteen (16) years and older only, another planned permanent living arrangement. Every permanency plan shall include the information set forth in section 16-1621(3)(a) and (b), Idaho Code. If the permanency plan has reunification as a permanency goal, the plan shall include information set forth in section 16-1621(3)(c), Idaho Code; however, if the circumstances that caused the child to be placed into protective custody resulted in a conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct or felony injury to a child, if the child has been in protective custody for more than six (6) months, or if a high risk of repeat maltreatment or reentry into foster care exists due to a parent’s recent completion of substance abuse treatment or other compelling circumstances, then the permanency plan shall include a period of protective supervision or trial home visit period of no less than ninety (90) days prior to the court vacating the case. During the protective supervision or trial home visit period, the department shall make regular home visits. During the protective supervision or trial home visit period, the court shall hold one (1) or more review hearings for each permanency plan where a period of protective supervision or a trial home visit has been imposed and may require participation in supportive services, including community home visiting and peer-to-peer mentoring. Families reunified following a period of protective supervision or a trial home visit should be encouraged by the department or the court to continue to participate in supportive services when beneficial and appropriate. If the permanency plan has a permanency goal other than reunification, the plan shall include the information set forth in section 16-1621(3)(d), Idaho Code, and if the permanency goal is termination of parental rights and adoption, then in addition to the information set forth in section 16-1620(3), Idaho Code, the permanency plan shall also name the proposed adoptive parents when known. If the adoptive parents are not known at the time the permanency plan is prepared, then the department shall amend the plan to name the proposed adoptive parents as soon as such person or persons become known. The court may approve a permanency plan that includes a primary goal and a concurrent goal. As used in this paragraph, "trial home visit" means that a child is returned to the care of the parent or guardian from whom the child was removed with the department continuing to have legal custody of the child.

(b) A permanency hearing shall be held no later than twelve (12) months from the date the child is removed from the home or the date of the court’s order taking jurisdiction under this chapter, whichever occurs first, and at least every twelve (12) months thereafter, as long as the court has jurisdiction over the child. The court shall approve, reject or modify the permanency plan of the department and review progress in accomplishing the permanency goal. The permanency plan, as approved by the court, shall be entered into the record as an order of the court. A permanency hearing may be held at any time and may be combined with the review hearing required under subsection (1) of this section.

(c) The court shall make written, case-specific findings whether the department made reasonable efforts to finalize the primary permanency goal in effect for the child. Lack of reasonable efforts to reunify may be a basis for an order approving a permanency plan with a permanency goal of reunification.

(d) Where the permanency goal is not reunification, the hearing shall include a review of the department’s consideration of options for in-state and out-of-state placement of the child. In the case of a child in an out-of-state placement, the court shall determine whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interest of the child.

(e) The court shall ask each youth age twelve (12) years and older about his desired permanency outcome and discuss with the youth his current permanency plan. In the case of a child who has attained the age of fourteen (14) years and older, the hearing shall include a determination of the services needed to assist the youth to make the transition from foster care to successful adulthood.

(f) The court may approve a primary permanency goal of another planned permanent living arrangement only for youth age sixteen (16) years or older and only upon written, case-specific findings that, as of the date of the hearing:

(i) Another planned permanent living arrangement is the best permanency goal for the youth; and

(ii) There are compelling reasons why it is not in the best interest of the youth to be placed permanently with a parent, in an adoptive placement, in a guardianship, or in the legal custody of the department in a placement with a fit and willing relative, including an adult sibling.

(g) If the child has been in the temporary or legal custody of the department for twelve (12) of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, the department shall file, prior to the last day of the fifteenth month, a petition to terminate parental rights, unless the court finds that:

(i) The child is placed permanently with a relative;

(ii) There are compelling reasons why termination of parental rights is not in the best interests of the child; or

(iii) The department has failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunify the child with his family.

(h) The department shall document and the court shall inquire:

(i) As to the efforts made to ensure educational stability for the child, including the efforts made to keep the child in the school in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement or that remaining in the school is not in the child’s best interests; and

(ii) That siblings were placed together or, if siblings were not placed together, the efforts made to place siblings together, the reasons why siblings were not placed together or why a joint placement would be contrary to the safety or well-being of one (1) or more of the siblings and a plan for ensuring frequent visitation or ongoing interaction among siblings, unless visitation or ongoing interaction would be contrary to the safety or well-being of one (1) or more of the siblings.

(i) If there is reason to believe that the child is an Indian child and there has not been a final determination regarding the child’s status as an Indian child, the department shall document and the court shall:

(i) Inquire about the efforts that have been made since the last hearing to determine whether the child is an Indian child; and

(ii) Determine that the department has made active efforts to work with all tribes of which the child may be a member to verify whether the child is a member or eligible for membership.

(j) At each permanency hearing, if the child is being treated with psychotropic medication, these additional requirements shall apply:

(i) The department shall report to the court the medication and dosage prescribed for the child and the medical professional who prescribed the medication; and

(ii) The court shall inquire as to, and may make any additional inquiry relevant to, the use of psychotropic medication.

(k) The court may authorize the department to suspend further efforts to reunify the child with the child’s parent, pending further order of the court, when a permanency plan is approved by the court and the permanency plan does not include a permanency goal of reunification.

(3) If a youth is in the legal custody of the department or other authorized agency and is within ninety (90) days of his eighteenth birthday, the department shall file a report with the court that includes the department’s transition plan for the youth. The court shall have a review or permanency hearing at which the court shall:

(a) Discuss with the youth his or her transition plan; and

(b) Review the transition plan with the youth for purposes of ensuring that the plan provides the services necessary to allow the youth to transition to a successful adulthood.

(4) If a child is in the legal custody of the department and the court has approved placement of the child in a qualified residential treatment program, then at each review hearing pursuant to subsection (1)(a) of this section and at each permanency hearing pursuant to subsection (2)(b) of this section the department shall document:

(a) That ongoing assessment of the strengths and needs of the child continues to support the determination that the needs of the child cannot be met through placement in a foster family home, that the placement in a qualified residential treatment program provides the most effective and appropriate level of care for the child that is in the least restrictive environment, and that the placement is consistent with the short-term and long-term goals for the child, as specified in the permanency plan for the child;

(b) The specific treatment or service needs that will be met for the child in the placement and the length of time the child is expected to need the treatment or services; and

(c) The efforts made by the department to prepare the child to return home or to be placed with a fit and willing relative, a legal guardian, or an adoptive parent or in a foster family home.

(5) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the court may order extended foster care for a person between the ages of eighteen (18) and twenty-three (23) years to help such person achieve a successful transition to adulthood, provided such person must have been in the custody of the department until his eighteenth birthday and must meet the criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 675(8)(B)(iv). The extension shall be for a fixed period of time and shall not extend past the person’s twenty-third birthday.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case: Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe (In Re Interest of Doe), 426 P.3d 1243 (Idaho 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe (In Re Interest of Doe), 426 P.3d 1243 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 16-1622(1)(a). Further, "[a] permanency hearing shall be held no later than twelve (12) months from the date the child is removed from the home or the date of the court's order taking jurisdiction under this chapter, whichever occurs first, and at least every twelve (12)…”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. John Doe (In re Doe), 416 P.3d 937 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 12× “I.C. § 16-1622(2)(a). At each permanency hearing, the court is given authority to "approve, reject or modify the permanency plan of the [D]epartment and review progress in accomplishing the permanency goal.”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 389 P.3d 141 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 4× “The mother has failed to comply with the Court’s orders in a child protection act case or the case plan, and reunification of the child with his parent has not occurred within the time standards set forth in Idaho Code § 16-1622 (g), and 16-2002(3)(b); b.”

In re the Termination of the Parental Rights of Doe, 330 P.3d 1040 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 8× “Idaho Code § 16-1622 provides: If the child has been in the temporary or legal custody of the department for fifteen (15) of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, the department shall file, prior to the last day of the fifteenth month, a petition to terminate parental rights,…”

Re: Thermination of Parental Rights (mother), 320 P.3d 1262 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 16-1622 (1)(b) provides in pertinent part: A motion for revocation or modification of an order issued under section 16-1619, Idaho Code, may be filed by the department or any party; provided that no motion may be filed by the respondents under *108 this section…”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (In re Jane Doe), 436 P.3d 1232 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 16-1622(2)(c). Though Mother failed to include the transcript of review hearings in the record, the court minutes reveal that Mother inquired about finding closer testing facilities and stated that the Department's reports don't reflect some of her progress.”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 369 P.3d 932 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to Idaho Code section 16-1622(1) and in response to these events, the magistrate court held review hearings through the end of 2014, on September 15, November 10, December 22, and on February 9, 2015.”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 232 P.3d 837 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 16-1622(3). A hearing to review the permanency plan shall be conducted prior to twelve months from the date the child is removed from the home or from the date the court takes jurisdiction, whichever occurs first.”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. John Doe, 418 P.3d 1216 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 2× “The magistrate court found that the Department had filed a CPA proceeding in 2005 and that it had been dismissed on the Department's motion on October 2, 2008, pursuant to then Idaho Code section 16-1622(6), which permitted the Department in CPA proceedings to "move the court at…”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 365 P.3d 420 (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 16-1622 (2)(b) mandates that within one year after the child’s removal or the court’s order taking jurisdiction, the court must hold a permanency hearing.”

DHW v. Jane Doe, 454 P.3d 1151 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 16-1622(2)(b). However, the Act also provides that a permanency hearing must be held within 12 months from the date a child is removed from the home.”

DHW v. John Doe (Idaho 2019). · cites it 18× “Idaho Code section 16-1622(2)(g) serves to impose a requirement on the Department, not any determination made by the magistrate court.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(1) — 4 cases

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 369 P.3d 932 (Idaho 2016). “Pursuant to Idaho Code section 16-1622(1) and in response to these events, the magistrate court held review hearings through the end of 2014, on September 15, November 10, December 22, and on February 9, 2015.”

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2020).

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2024).

IDHW v. John Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2024).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(1)(a) — 1 case

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe (In Re Interest of Doe), 426 P.3d 1243 (Idaho 2018). “I.C. § 16-1622(1)(a). Further, "[a] permanency hearing shall be held no later than twelve (12) months from the date the child is removed from the home or the date of the court's order taking jurisdiction under this chapter, whichever occurs first, and at least every twelve (12)…”

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(2) — 1 case

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(2)(G)(i) — 1 case

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(2)(a) — 4 cases

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. John Doe (In re Doe), 416 P.3d 937 (Idaho 2018). “I.C. § 16-1622(2)(a). At each permanency hearing, the court is given authority to "approve, reject or modify the permanency plan of the [D]epartment and review progress in accomplishing the permanency goal.”

Dept of H&W v. Does I (Idaho 2018).

IDHW v. Jane Doe (2022-36) (Idaho 2023).

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(2)(b) — 5 cases

DHW v. Jane Doe, 454 P.3d 1151 (Idaho 2019). “” I.C. § 16-1622(2)(b). However, the Act also provides that a permanency hearing must be held within 12 months from the date a child is removed from the home.”

Dept of H&W v. Does I (Idaho 2018).

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2020).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(2)(c) — 5 cases

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (In re Jane Doe), 436 P.3d 1232 (Idaho 2019). “See I.C. § 16-1622(2)(c). Though Mother failed to include the transcript of review hearings in the record, the court minutes reveal that Mother inquired about finding closer testing facilities and stated that the Department's reports don't reflect some of her progress.”

Dept of H&W v. Does I (Idaho 2018).

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2020).

DHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho 2019).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(2)(g) — 7 cases

In re the Termination of the Parental Rights of Doe, 330 P.3d 1040 (Idaho 2014). “Idaho Code § 16-1622 provides: If the child has been in the temporary or legal custody of the department for fifteen (15) of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, the department shall file, prior to the last day of the fifteenth month, a petition to terminate parental rights,…”

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2020).

DHW v. John Doe (Idaho 2019). “Idaho Code section 16-1622(2)(g) serves to impose a requirement on the Department, not any determination made by the magistrate court.”

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(2)(g)(i) — 2 cases

DHW v. John Doe (Idaho 2019). “Idaho Code section 16-1622(2)(g) serves to impose a requirement on the Department, not any determination made by the magistrate court.”

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(2)(g)(iii) — 6 cases

DHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2018).

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2020).

IDHW v. John Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe (2014-08) (Idaho Ct. App. 2014).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(2)(h)(ii) — 2 cases

Dept of H&W v. Does I (Idaho 2018).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(2)(k) — 1 case

IDHW v. Jane Doe (2022-36) (Idaho 2023).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(3) — 2 cases

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 232 P.3d 837 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010). “I.C. § 16-1622(3). A hearing to review the permanency plan shall be conducted prior to twelve months from the date the child is removed from the home or from the date the court takes jurisdiction, whichever occurs first.”

In the Matter of Termination of Parent-Child Relationship (Idaho Ct. App. 2010).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(4) — 2 cases

In the Matter of Termination of Parent-Child Relationship (Idaho Ct. App. 2010).

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(6) — 1 case

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. John Doe, 418 P.3d 1216 (Idaho 2016). “The magistrate court found that the Department had filed a CPA proceeding in 2005 and that it had been dismissed on the Department's motion on October 2, 2008, pursuant to then Idaho Code section 16-1622(6), which permitted the Department in CPA proceedings to "move the court at…”

— Idaho Code § 16-1622(g)(2) — 2 cases

Health & Welfare v. John Doe (13-29) (Idaho 2014).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.