Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 16-1623 (2026)
Amended disposition — Removal during protective supervision.
✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: Idaho Code § 16-1623 (2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Amended disposition — Removal during protective supervision.
(1) Where the child has been placed under the protective supervision of the department pursuant to section 16-1619, Idaho Code, the child may be removed from his or her home under the following circumstances:
(a) A peace officer may remove the child where the child is endangered in his surroundings and prompt removal is necessary to prevent serious physical or mental injury to the child; or
(b) The court has ordered, based upon facts presented to the court, that the child should be removed from his or her present conditions or surroundings because continuation in such conditions or surroundings would be contrary to the welfare of the child and vesting legal custody in the department or other authorized agency would be in the child’s best interests.
(2) Upon removal, the child shall be taken to a place of shelter care.
(3) When a child under protective supervision is removed from his home pursuant to subsection (1)(a) or (b) of this section without a hearing, a redisposition hearing shall be held within forty-eight (48) hours of the child’s removal from the home, except for Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. At the hearing, the court shall determine whether to vest legal custody in the department or other authorized agency pursuant to section 16-1619(5)(b), Idaho Code. When a child under protective supervision is removed from his home pursuant to subsection (1)(b) of this section and the facts supporting the removal are presented to the court at a hearing, the hearing at which the court orders the child’s removal is the redisposition hearing.
(4) In determining whether to vest legal custody in the department or other authorized agency, the court shall consider any information relevant to the redisposition of the child, and in any event shall make detailed written findings based upon facts in the record as required by section 16-1619(6), Idaho Code.
(5) An order vesting legal custody with the department or other authorized agency under this section shall be treated for all purposes as if such an order had been part of the court’s original decree under section 16-1619, Idaho Code. The court may order the department to prepare a written case plan. The court may hold a case plan hearing. The case plan hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days of the redisposition hearing pursuant to section 16-1621, Idaho Code.
(6) Each of the parents or legal guardians from whom the child was removed shall be given notice of the redisposition hearing in the same time and manner as required for notice of a shelter care hearing under section 16-1615(2) and (3), Idaho Code.
(7) The redisposition hearing may be continued for a reasonable time upon the request of the parties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case: In Re Doe
In Re Doe (2000)
“§ 16-1623(k) does not state that a court may allow related persons to intervene, it is unlikely that the legislature intended I.C. § 16-1623 to provide a conditional right to intervene.”
Roe v. State (2000)
“§ 16-1623(k) does not state that a court may allow related persons to intervene, it is unlikely that the legislature intended I.C. § 16-1623 to provide a conditional right to intervene.”
Rees v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH AND WELFARE (2006)
“Additionally, the ICPA authorizes the Department to act upon receiving a report of child abuse, neglect or abandonment by causing an investigation “to be made in accordance with this chapter as is appropriate.”
In Re Doe (2006)
“§ 675 (5)(E); I.C. § 16-1623(i) (redesignated in 2005 as I.”
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe (2011)
“I.C. § 16-1623. At the adjudicatory hearing, the magistrate abused his discretion in vesting custody in the Department.”
State, Department of Health & Welfare v. Roe (2006)
“§ 675 (5)(E); I.C. § 16-1623(i) (redesignated in 2005 as I.”
IDHW v. John Doe (2023)
“This conclusion was based on substantial and competent evidence consistent with Idaho Code section 16-1623. 11 Whether Father believes that the children should have remained in protective custody is not the pertinent question.”
IDHW v. Jane Doe (2023)
“§ 16-1620 (providing for permanency hearings); I.C. § 16-1623(5) (providing for amended disposition with such order treated as part of original adjudicatory decree under I.”
IDHW v. Jane Doe (2022-36) (2023)
“I.C. § 16-1623(4)-(5). If the magistrate court makes that decision, such an order would be appealable under section 16- 1625(1)(b).”
— Idaho Code § 16-1623(1) — 1 case
IDHW v. John Doe (2023)
“This conclusion was based on substantial and competent evidence consistent with Idaho Code section 16-1623. 11 Whether Father believes that the children should have remained in protective custody is not the pertinent question.”
— Idaho Code § 16-1623(1)(b) — 1 case
IDHW v. John Doe (2023)
“This conclusion was based on substantial and competent evidence consistent with Idaho Code section 16-1623. 11 Whether Father believes that the children should have remained in protective custody is not the pertinent question.”
— Idaho Code § 16-1623(3) — 1 case
IDHW v. John Doe (2023)
“This conclusion was based on substantial and competent evidence consistent with Idaho Code section 16-1623. 11 Whether Father believes that the children should have remained in protective custody is not the pertinent question.”
— Idaho Code § 16-1623(4) — 2 cases
IDHW v. John Doe (2023)
“This conclusion was based on substantial and competent evidence consistent with Idaho Code section 16-1623. 11 Whether Father believes that the children should have remained in protective custody is not the pertinent question.”
IDHW v. Jane Doe (2022-36) (2023)
“I.C. § 16-1623(4)-(5). If the magistrate court makes that decision, such an order would be appealable under section 16- 1625(1)(b).”
— Idaho Code § 16-1623(5) — 1 case
IDHW v. Jane Doe (2023)
“§ 16-1620 (providing for permanency hearings); I.C. § 16-1623(5) (providing for amended disposition with such order treated as part of original adjudicatory decree under I.”
— Idaho Code § 16-1623(h) — 2 cases
In Re Doe (2000)
“§ 16-1623(k) does not state that a court may allow related persons to intervene, it is unlikely that the legislature intended I.C. § 16-1623 to provide a conditional right to intervene.”
Roe v. State (2000)
“§ 16-1623(k) does not state that a court may allow related persons to intervene, it is unlikely that the legislature intended I.C. § 16-1623 to provide a conditional right to intervene.”
— Idaho Code § 16-1623(i) — 4 cases
In Re Doe (2006)
“§ 675 (5)(E); I.C. § 16-1623(i) (redesignated in 2005 as I.”
In Re Doe (2000)
“§ 16-1623(k) does not state that a court may allow related persons to intervene, it is unlikely that the legislature intended I.C. § 16-1623 to provide a conditional right to intervene.”
State, Department of Health & Welfare v. Roe (2006)
“§ 675 (5)(E); I.C. § 16-1623(i) (redesignated in 2005 as I.”
Roe v. State (2000)
“§ 16-1623(k) does not state that a court may allow related persons to intervene, it is unlikely that the legislature intended I.C. § 16-1623 to provide a conditional right to intervene.”
— Idaho Code § 16-1623(k) — 2 cases
In Re Doe (2000)
“§ 16-1623(k) does not state that a court may allow related persons to intervene, it is unlikely that the legislature intended I.C. § 16-1623 to provide a conditional right to intervene.”
Roe v. State (2000)
“§ 16-1623(k) does not state that a court may allow related persons to intervene, it is unlikely that the legislature intended I.C. § 16-1623 to provide a conditional right to intervene.”
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.