Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 16-2010 (2026)

Decree.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Decree.

(1) Every order of the court terminating the parent and child relationship or transferring legal custody or guardianship of the person of the child shall be in writing and shall recite the findings upon which such order is based, including findings pertaining to the court’s jurisdiction.

(2) (a) If the court finds sufficient grounds exist for the termination of the parent and child relationship, it shall so decree and:

(i) Appoint an individual as guardian of the child’s person, or

(ii) Appoint an individual as guardian of the child’s person and vest legal custody in another individual or in an authorized agency, or

(iii) Appoint an authorized agency as guardian of the child’s person and vest legal custody in such agency.

(b) The court shall also make an order fixing responsibility for the child’s support. The parent and child relationship may be terminated with respect to one (1) parent without affecting the relationship between the child and the other parent.

(3) Where the court does not order termination of the parent and child relationship, it shall dismiss the petition; provided however, that where the court finds that the best interest of the child requires substitution or supplementation of parental care and supervision, it shall make an order placing the child under protective supervision, or vesting temporary legal custody in an authorized agency, fixing responsibility for temporary child support, and designating the period of time during which the order shall remain in effect.

(4) If termination of parental rights is granted and the child is placed in the guardianship or legal custody of the department of health and welfare, the court, upon petition, shall conduct a hearing as to the future status of the child within twelve (12) months of the order of termination of parental rights, and every twelve (12) months subsequently until the child is adopted or is in a placement sanctioned by the court.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2023 · leading case: Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 394 P.3d 112 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 394 P.3d 112 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 16× “Specifically, she argued that the magistrate violated the statutory mandate in I.C. § 16-2010(1) by not issuing a written order containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Hays, 46 P.3d 529 (Idaho 2002). · cites it 8× “Idaho Code § 16-2010 (2001). In this case, the magistrate judge selected the third option.”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe (In Re Doe), 415 P.3d 945 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code section 16-2010 mandates that "[w]here the court does not order termination of the parent and child relationship, it shall dismiss the petition.”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 390 P.3d 866 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “In this case, no party objected to the magistrate’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the basis that they were insufficient.”

H & W v. Jane Doe (2016-43) (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 18× “Specifically, she argues that the magistrate violated the statutory mandate in I.”

IDHW v. John Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “” In this vein, Doe argues that, while I.C. §§ 16-2010 and 16-2014 reference orders or decrees granting or denying termination, I.”

H & W v. John Doe (2016-44) (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “Idaho Code § 16-2010 (1) requires that “every order of the court terminating the parent and child relationship .”

Dept of Health & Welfare v. Doe I (2017-21) (Idaho 2017). · cites it 4× “While Child does not raise other procedural errors in his brief, it bears mentioning that the Petition was filed by the Department pursuant to sections 16-2004 and 16-2006, proper 5 notice was provided to the necessary parties pursuant to section 16-2007, and the magistrate…”

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Doe contends that the inconsistencies preclude appellate review of whether the magistrate court’s finding of neglect has sufficient evidentiary support.”

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 16-2010(2)(b). The evidence in the record indicates that John and Jane Doe were no longer residing together by the time of the termination trial and were seeking a divorce.”

Ex parte Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 215 So. 3d 582 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “”); Idaho Code § 16-2010 (1) ("Every order of the court terminating the parent and child relationship or transferring legal custody or guardianship of the person of the child shall be in writing and shall recite the findings upon which such order is based, including findings…”

— Idaho Code § 16-2010(1) — 7 cases

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 394 P.3d 112 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). “Specifically, she argued that the magistrate violated the statutory mandate in I.C. § 16-2010(1) by not issuing a written order containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 390 P.3d 866 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). “In this case, no party objected to the magistrate’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the basis that they were insufficient.”

H & W v. Jane Doe (2016-43) (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). “Specifically, she argues that the magistrate violated the statutory mandate in I.”

IDHW v. John Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2023). “” In this vein, Doe argues that, while I.C. §§ 16-2010 and 16-2014 reference orders or decrees granting or denying termination, I.”

H & W v. John Doe (2016-44) (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). “Idaho Code § 16-2010 (1) requires that “every order of the court terminating the parent and child relationship .”

— Idaho Code § 16-2010(2)(b) — 1 case

IDHW v. Jane Doe (Idaho Ct. App. 2021). “I.C. § 16-2010(2)(b). The evidence in the record indicates that John and Jane Doe were no longer residing together by the time of the termination trial and were seeking a divorce.”

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.