Rhodes v. State, Dept. of Health and Welfare , 107 Idaho 1120 ( 1985 )

HUNTLEY, Justice.

Catherine Field Rhodes appeals from the District Court’s affirmation of a Magistrate Court’s termination of the parent-child relationship between Ms. Rhodes and her child.

After a six day hearing before the Honorable A. Richard Grant, Magistrate, the court rendered a memorandum opinion terminating the parent-child relationship. In the opinion, the magistrate summarized the relevant testimony of witnesses for both parties and made the following findings: (1) that Ms. Rhodes had physically abused the child; (2) that Ms. Rhodes had neglected the child; (3) that Ms. Rhodes and her husband had been dishonest with the Department of Health and Welfare and had attempted to cover up their physical abuse of the child; (4) that the Rhodes’ prognosis for improving their parenting ability was poor; and (5) that the child had bonded with her foster mother and would experience trauma and further developmental delay if she were removed from her foster mother’s care. The magistrate ordered the parent-child relationship terminated based on his findings that Ms. Rhodes had abused and neglected her child and that termination of the relationship was in the best interest of the parent and child.

The matter was appealed to the Honorable Gerald Schroeder. After briefing and argument, Judge Schroeder affirmed the magistrate’s decision.

A parent-child relationship may be terminated by the court when it finds that the parent has neglected or abused the child or that termination is found to be in the best interest of the parent and child. I.C. § 16-2005. In the instant case, the magistrate’s findings of neglect and abuse as set out in the memorandum opinion are clearly supported by substantial and competent evidence. Likewise his conclusion that termination is in the child’s and parent’s best interest is supported by this evidence. When findings are supported by substantial and competent, although conflicting, evidence, those findings will be sustained on appeal. In the Matter of Matthews, 97 Idaho 99, 540 P.2d 284 (1975). We therefore affirm the district court’s affirmation of the magistrate’s order.

Costs to respondent. No attorneys’ fees awarded.

DONALDSON, C.J., and SHEPARD and BAKES, JJ., concur. BISTLINE, J. concurs in the result.