Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 32-1013 (2026)

INTERFERENCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL PARENTAL RIGHTS RESTRICTED. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

INTERFERENCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL PARENTAL RIGHTS RESTRICTED. 

  (1) Neither the state of Idaho, nor any political subdivision thereof, may violate a parent’s fundamental and established rights protected by this act, and any restriction of or interference with such rights shall not be upheld unless it demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the restriction or interference is both:

(a)  Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(b)  The least restrictive means available for the furthering of that compelling governmental interest.
(2)  The foregoing principles apply to any interference whether now existing or hereafter enacted.
(3)  Nothing in this act shall be construed as invalidating the provisions of the child protective act in chapter 16, title 16, Idaho Code, or modify the burden of proof at any stage of proceedings under the child protective act.
(4)  When a parent’s fundamental rights protected by this act are violated, a parent may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and may obtain appropriate relief against the governmental entity.
(5)  If a parent prevails in a civil action against the state, or a political subdivision thereof, as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the parent is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Nelson v. Evans, 464 P.3d 301 (Idaho 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nelson v. Evans, 464 P.3d 301 (Idaho 2020). · cites it 4× “The Evanses also requested that the magistrate court grant summary judgment in their favor because there is no common law cause of action for grandparent visitation since (1) the Nelsons have not proved that the granddaughters have been harmed by the Evanses, and (2) the…”
Nelson v. Evans, 517 P.3d 816 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 10× “In addition, the Act provides that “[g]overnmental efforts that restrict or interfere with these fundamental rights are only permitted if that restriction or interference satisfies the strict scrutiny standard provided in section 32-1013, Idaho Code.” I.C. § 32-1010(6).”
John Doe I & Jane Doe I v. John Doe, 566 P.3d 409 (Idaho 2025). · cites it 10× “They argue that our decision to sua sponte invoke the fundamental error doctrine infringes upon those fundamental rights and is therefore subject to a strict scrutiny review pursuant to Idaho Code section 32-1013(1) and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Murray v. Dalton (Idaho 2024). · cites it 20× “I.C. § 32-1013 (emphasis added). As the plain language of both sections 32-1010 and 32-1013 sets forth, the Act’s prohibitions only relate to government conduct.”
Murray v. Dalton (Idaho 2024). · cites it 20× “I.C. § 32-1013 (emphasis added). As the plain language of both sections 32-1010 and 32-1013 sets forth, the Act’s prohibitions only relate to government conduct.”
Nicholson v. Bennett (Idaho Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 12× “Idaho Code § 32-1013 Does Not Apply Bennett argues I.”
IDHW v. John Doe (Idaho 2023). · cites it 4× “” Critically, the statute also provides that “[n]othing in this act shall be construed as invalidating the provisions of the child protective act in chapter 16, title 16, Idaho Code, or modify the burden of proof at any stage of proceedings under the child protective act.”
State v. Gale (Idaho Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “1 Idaho Code § 32-1013 reads as follows: (1) Neither the state of Idaho, nor any political subdivision thereof, may violate a parent’s fundamental and established rights protected by this act, and any restriction of or interference with such rights shall not be upheld unless it…”
IDHW v. Jane & John Doe (Idaho 2024). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 32-1013(4). Parents contend the appropriate relief for a violation of their fundamental right to discipline their children is to “void” all actions taken by IDHW and the magistrate court.”
Hill v. Emergency Med. of Idaho, P.A. (Idaho 2025). · cites it 2× “In support of this argument, the Hills cite Idaho Code section 32-1013, which restricts governmental interference with the fundamental rights of parents; section 32-102, which defines an unborn person as a legal person; and section 32-1003, which states that parents can be held…”
— Idaho Code § 32-1013(1) — 1 case
John Doe I & Jane Doe I v. John Doe, 566 P.3d 409 (Idaho 2025). “They argue that our decision to sua sponte invoke the fundamental error doctrine infringes upon those fundamental rights and is therefore subject to a strict scrutiny review pursuant to Idaho Code section 32-1013(1) and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
— Idaho Code § 32-1013(1)(a) — 3 cases
Nelson v. Evans, 517 P.3d 816 (Idaho 2022). “In addition, the Act provides that “[g]overnmental efforts that restrict or interfere with these fundamental rights are only permitted if that restriction or interference satisfies the strict scrutiny standard provided in section 32-1013, Idaho Code.” I.C. § 32-1010(6).”
Murray v. Dalton (Idaho 2024). “I.C. § 32-1013 (emphasis added). As the plain language of both sections 32-1010 and 32-1013 sets forth, the Act’s prohibitions only relate to government conduct.”
Murray v. Dalton (Idaho 2024). “I.C. § 32-1013 (emphasis added). As the plain language of both sections 32-1010 and 32-1013 sets forth, the Act’s prohibitions only relate to government conduct.”
— Idaho Code § 32-1013(2) — 2 cases
Murray v. Dalton (Idaho 2024). “I.C. § 32-1013 (emphasis added). As the plain language of both sections 32-1010 and 32-1013 sets forth, the Act’s prohibitions only relate to government conduct.”
Murray v. Dalton (Idaho 2024). “I.C. § 32-1013 (emphasis added). As the plain language of both sections 32-1010 and 32-1013 sets forth, the Act’s prohibitions only relate to government conduct.”
— Idaho Code § 32-1013(3) — 1 case
IDHW v. John Doe (Idaho 2023). “” Critically, the statute also provides that “[n]othing in this act shall be construed as invalidating the provisions of the child protective act in chapter 16, title 16, Idaho Code, or modify the burden of proof at any stage of proceedings under the child protective act.”
— Idaho Code § 32-1013(4) — 2 cases
John Doe I & Jane Doe I v. John Doe, 566 P.3d 409 (Idaho 2025). “They argue that our decision to sua sponte invoke the fundamental error doctrine infringes upon those fundamental rights and is therefore subject to a strict scrutiny review pursuant to Idaho Code section 32-1013(1) and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
IDHW v. Jane & John Doe (Idaho 2024). “I.C. § 32-1013(4). Parents contend the appropriate relief for a violation of their fundamental right to discipline their children is to “void” all actions taken by IDHW and the magistrate court.”
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.