Fundamental Error Overrides Preclusion in Idaho Termination/Adoption Cases; Rule 60(b)(4) Must Be Brought Within a “Reasonable Time”; Six‑Month Adoption Repose Unconstitutional as Applied Where an Unwed “Biology‑Plus” Father Received No Notice

Introduction

In this substitute opinion, the Idaho Supreme Court addressed whether a biological father—whose parental rights were terminated and whose child was adopted without notice—may file a second motion under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to set aside the judgment as void for want of due process, even though he previously filed (and lost) a different Rule 60(b) motion. The Court held that where unrebutted evidence demonstrates a fundamental, clear, and obvious violation of a parent’s procedural due process rights—here, the termination of a “biology plus” father’s rights without prior notice—the doctrine of fundamental error creates an exception to procedural bars such as res judicata and waiver.

The Court also clarified two important procedural rules: (1) a Rule 60(b)(4) motion alleging a void judgment must be filed “within a reasonable time” (overruling prior Idaho cases to the extent they suggested such motions can be brought “at any time”), and (2) Idaho’s six-month statute of repose for adoption judgments, Idaho Code section 16-1512(2), is unconstitutional as applied where an unwed father with a “biology plus” relationship received no notice and promptly and consistently sought relief once aware of the judgment. The decision affirms the district court’s reversal of the magistrate court’s dismissal and remands for an evidentiary hearing on timeliness and, if timely, the merits of the 60(b)(4) challenge.

Parties: Petitioners-Appellants Jane Doe I and John Doe I (Mother and Adoptive Father) sought to terminate the parental rights of Respondent John Doe (biological Father) and proceed with a step-parent adoption. After Mother obtained termination/adoption orders without serving Father, Father filed post-judgment relief motions. The appeal before the Supreme Court concerns Father’s second motion under Rule 60(b)(4) alleging a void judgment for lack of notice.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court affirms the district court’s reversal of the magistrate court’s dismissal of Father’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion. While agreeing that res judicata can apply within the same case, the Supreme Court holds that the fundamental error doctrine applies here and permits Father’s 60(b)(4) motion notwithstanding res judicata and waiver.
Fundamental error: The unrebutted record shows Father had a “biology plus” relationship (significant personal contact and commitment) with the child; terminating his parental rights without notice and opportunity to be heard was a clear, obvious violation of procedural due process affecting the fundamental right to parent.
Res judicata and waiver: Although the district court erred in stating res judicata operates only across separate suits, the Supreme Court affirms on alternative grounds—fundamental error supplies a narrow exception to claim preclusion and waiver in this setting.
Rule 60(b)(4) timeliness: The Court overrules Idaho cases suggesting void judgments can be attacked “at any time” and holds that Rule 60(b)(4) motions must be brought “within a reasonable time” under I.R.C.P. 60(c)(1). Reasonableness is a fact question; when the party lacked notice of the judgment, the clock runs from when the party learned of the judgment.
Statute of repose: Idaho Code section 16-1512(2)’s six-month repose period is unconstitutional as applied here, because enforcing it would arbitrarily extinguish a father’s procedural due process claim when he received no notice and diligently sought relief.
Other procedural defenses rejected: The Court rejects Mother’s reliance on claim splitting, invited error, “law of the case,” and the notion that Rule 60(b) is being used to dodge an appeal deadline.
Overruling inconsistent precedent: The Court overrules John Doe (2013-29) to the extent it said fundamental error does not apply in termination appeals, reaffirming earlier Idaho cases applying fundamental error in parental rights contexts.
Attorney fees: The Court awards Father partial attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-121 for having to respond to certain arguments (invited error, appellate waiver, law of the case, claim splitting) deemed frivolous or without foundation; Mother’s other arguments, though unsuccessful, were not deemed frivolous.
Remand: The magistrate court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to decide whether Father’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion was filed within a reasonable time; if timely, it must determine whether to grant the motion based on the existing record or after additional evidence.
Rehearing: On rehearing, the Court clarifies that the due process violation is clear and obvious on the unrebutted record, explains why the statute of repose is unconstitutional as applied, and rebuffs claims that the Court’s sua sponte reliance on fundamental error violated Mother’s or Adoptive Father’s rights. The Court admonishes counsel regarding inappropriate personal attacks on the judiciary.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Shaped the Decision

Res judicata (claim and issue preclusion): Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion, 144 Idaho 119, 157 P.3d 613 (2007); Berkshire Invs., LLC v. Taylor, 153 Idaho 73, 278 P.3d 943 (2012); Stoddard v. Hagadone Corp., 147 Idaho 186, 207 P.3d 162 (2009). These cases set out the three elements of claim preclusion and the five-element test for issue preclusion. The Supreme Court recognized that res judicata can apply within the same case (see Wolfe) but held that the fundamental error exception controls here.
Res judicata within the same case: State v. Wolfe, 158 Idaho 55, 343 P.3d 497 (2015). Wolfe demonstrates that res judicata can bar successive motions raising issues that could have been raised earlier in the same case. The Court agreed with Mother on this legal point but still affirmed the district court on alternative grounds because fundamental error applies.
Fundamental parental rights and due process: Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. John Doe (2011-02), 151 Idaho 356, 256 P.3d 764 (2011); Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. John Doe (2013-17), 155 Idaho 896, 318 P.3d 886 (2014). These authorities underline that parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Fundamental error doctrine in parental cases: State v. John Doe (In re Jane Doe), 144 Idaho 534, 164 P.3d 814 (2007); Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. John Doe (2017-32), 163 Idaho 536, 415 P.3d 945 (2018). The Court reaffirms these decisions and explicitly overrules In re John Doe (2013-29), 156 Idaho 682, 330 P.3d 1040 (2014), to the extent it declared fundamental error inapplicable to termination appeals.
“Biology plus” and as-applied constitutional limits on adoption statutes: Jane Doe I v. John Doe II (2022-06) (In re John Doe II), 170 Idaho 901, 517 P.3d 830 (2022). The Court relies on this case to hold that an unwed father who proves “biology plus” (significant personal contact and full commitment to parental responsibility) has fundamental rights requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard before termination or adoption.
Procedural due process principles: Telford v. Nye, 154 Idaho 606, 301 P.3d 264 (2013). Sets forth the minimum due process requirements (notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner).
Waiver of constitutional rights: College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999). The Court notes the presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.
Rule 60(b)(4) timeliness—overruling conflicting lines of authority:
- Timeliness (reasonable time): Thiel v. Stradley, 118 Idaho 86, 794 P.2d 1142 (1990); Wright v. Wright, 130 Idaho 918, 950 P.2d 1257 (1998); McGrew v. McGrew, 139 Idaho 551, 82 P.3d 833 (2003); Fisher Sys. Leasing, Inc. v. J&J Gunsmithing, 135 Idaho 624, 21 P.3d 946 (Ct. App. 2001); Meyer v. Meyer, 135 Idaho 460, 19 P.3d 774 (Ct. App. 2001); Lytle v. Lytle, 158 Idaho 639, 350 P.3d 340 (Ct. App. 2015).
- “At any time” language now overruled: Burns v. Baldwin, 138 Idaho 480, 65 P.3d 502 (2003); Meyers v. Hansen, 148 Idaho 283, 221 P.3d 81 (2009); Golub v. Kirk-Scott, Ltd., 157 Idaho 966, 342 P.3d 893 (2015); D.L. Evans Bank v. Dean, 173 Idaho 20, 538 P.3d 793 (2023); Pinkham v. Plate, 174 Idaho 178, 552 P.3d 605 (2024). The Court traces the “at any time” phrasing to an importation of California law (Burns) and corrects course: Idaho’s Rule 60(c)(1) governs and requires a “reasonable time.”
Collateral attack versus direct motion: H.S. Cramer & Co. v. Washburn-Wilson Seed Co., 71 Idaho 421, 233 P.2d 809 (1951). Mother’s reliance on Cramer was rejected; Father did not invite error and consistently argued the case was distinguishable.
Void judgments confer no rights: Prather v. Loyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P.2d 910 (1963). Adoptive Father acquired no constitutional parental rights under a judgment that is void for lack of due process.
Attorney fees for frivolous appellate positions: Idaho Code § 12-121; Kesting v. Kesting, 160 Idaho 214, 370 P.3d 729 (2016). Applied to award Father partial fees for opposing certain meritless procedural arguments.

Legal Reasoning

The Court begins by acknowledging that res judicata (both claim and issue preclusion) can, in principle, operate within the same case to block repetitive or belated contentions (Wolfe). The magistrate court had dismissed Father’s second Rule 60 motion under claim preclusion on the ground that he could have raised due process in his earlier Rule 60(b)(3) motion. The district court reversed, mistakenly reasoning that res judicata only applies across separate suits. The Supreme Court affirms the outcome but corrects the reasoning: res judicata can apply within the same case. Yet, even so, it cannot bar Father’s 60(b)(4) motion in the unique circumstances here.

Why not? Because the unrebutted record shows a fundamental error—a clear and obvious violation of procedural due process affecting a fundamental right. Father attested (and submitted corroborating affidavits and photos) that he:

Had an ongoing relationship with Mother, was present at the child’s birth, created a room for the child, and had at least ninety visits within eight months;
Provided financial support and attempted to establish a joint account for the child;
Was not served with the termination/adoption petition and was unaware of the proceedings.

Mother presented no contrary evidence at any stage; her litigation strategy focused on procedural defenses and disputing the sufficiency (not the truth) of Father’s evidence. Given this unrebutted record, and under Jane Doe I v. John Doe II (2022-06), the Court holds Father had a “biology plus” relationship that triggers constitutional due process protection. The termination/adoption judgment entered without notice and an opportunity to be heard therefore violated due process in a manner that is clear, obvious, and non-harmless. This satisfies Idaho’s fundamental error standard and justifies an exception to both claim preclusion and waiver (including counsel’s earlier statement declining a constitutional attack on the putative father registry).

Turning to timeliness, the Court resolves a split in Idaho authority: a 60(b)(4) motion alleging a void judgment is not temporally unlimited. The motion must be made “within a reasonable time” as Rule 60(c)(1) states. Earlier decisions importing “at any time” from California law are overruled to that extent. When a party did not receive notice of judgment, “reasonable time” is measured from when the party learned of the judgment (McGrew). Here, Father moved quickly and consistently once he learned of the judgment, but the Court leaves the “reasonable time” determination to a factual hearing on remand.

On rehearing, the Court further holds that Idaho Code § 16-1512(2), which bars any attack on an adoption after six months except for fraud by the adopting party, is unconstitutional as applied in this case. Because Father had no notice despite his “biology plus” status, and because he diligently pursued relief, enforcing the six-month bar would deprive him of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, violating procedural due process. The Court distinguishes out-of-state cases where the biological parent consented to the adoption and waited years to challenge it.

The Court rejects Mother’s remaining procedural theories:

Claim splitting does not apply to successive motions within the same lawsuit.
Invited error is inapplicable; Father did not concede controlling law or strategically induce the alleged error.
“Rule 60(b) as appeal substitute” does not bar a 60(b)(4) motion raising a new, fundamental argument (void judgment) not previously litigated.
Law of the case does not apply absent a prior appellate ruling establishing a controlling legal point in this case.
Preservation and appellate waiver: Father’s intermediate appellate briefing adequately challenged the magistrate’s ruling with record citations and legal authority.

Finally, the Court addresses professionalism. In denying rehearing, it admonishes counsel for personal attacks on the Court, emphasizing that zealous advocacy must be grounded in the record and the law—not ad hominem criticism when the legal ruling is unfavorable.

Impact

Substantive rights: The opinion robustly safeguards unwed fathers who establish “biology plus”—significant personal involvement and commitment—from termination without notice. Courts and petitioners must carefully assess whether a biological father’s conduct crosses the “biology plus” threshold before proceeding ex parte.
Procedural posture in adoption/termination cases:
- Res judicata and waiver are not absolute where a fundamental, clear due process violation affecting parental rights is shown on an unrebutted record.
- Litigants should expect more evidentiary development on “biology plus” when notice is contested.
Rule 60(b)(4) practice in Idaho:
- Timeliness matters. Voidness may be powerful, but a 60(b)(4) motion must be filed within a reasonable time. The opinion realigns Idaho practice with the text of Rule 60(c)(1) and overrules contrary suggestions that such motions are timeless.
- “Reasonable time” is fact-specific and, where notice was lacking, runs from discovery of the judgment.
Adoption repose statute limited as applied:
- The six-month repose in § 16-1512(2) cannot constitutionally cut off a “biology plus” father who had no notice and diligently sought relief once aware.
- This does not broadly invalidate the statute; the holding is as-applied and fact-bound.
Professionalism and appellate advocacy:
- Expect stricter scrutiny of procedural arguments asserted without cogent record or authority support; fee exposure may follow under § 12-121.
- Courts may sua sponte invoke doctrines necessary to protect constitutional rights; counsel should respond with law-and-record-based arguments, not personal attacks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Biology plus: A biological connection alone does not automatically confer constitutional parental rights on an unwed father. He must also show significant personal contact with the child and a full commitment to parental responsibilities. If he does, he is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before termination/adoption.
Procedural due process: At minimum, due process requires notice and a real chance to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful way before the state (or the court, through orders) deprives someone of a significant liberty interest—here, the parent-child relationship.
Fundamental error: An error that is clear or obvious, goes to the heart of a constitutional right, and is not harmless. In parental-rights contexts, it can overcome usual procedural bars such as preclusion and waiver.
Res judicata (claim preclusion) vs. issue preclusion:
- Claim preclusion bars later litigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior final judgment involving the same parties and transactions.
- Issue preclusion bars re-litigation of issues actually litigated and decided in a prior final judgment.
The Court confirms these doctrines can operate within the same case—but fundamental error may create a narrow exception.
Rule 60(b)(4) (void judgments): Allows a court to set aside a final judgment that is void—e.g., for lack of jurisdiction or a foundational due process failure (no notice, no opportunity to be heard). In Idaho, such motions must be filed within a “reasonable time.”
Statute of repose vs. statute of limitations: A repose period is a hard cutoff tied to an event (here, the adoption order), not when the injury is discovered, and often cannot be tolled. However, as applied here, enforcing the six-month repose would violate due process because Father had no notice and pursued relief promptly once he learned of the judgment.
Putative Father Registry: Idaho’s registry provides a statutory system affecting notice and consent in adoption. However, constitutional protections can prevail despite registry noncompliance where a father proves “biology plus,” requiring notice.
Invited error and law of the case: Invited error bars reversal where the complaining party induced the error; law of the case binds courts after an appellate decision states a controlling legal rule in the same case. Neither applied here.

Conclusion

This opinion sets three significant guideposts for Idaho law. First, in parental-rights termination and adoption cases, the fundamental error doctrine applies and, in narrow circumstances, can override res judicata and waiver to prevent the enforcement of judgments tainted by clear, unrebutted due process violations. Second, Rule 60(b)(4) motions challenging void judgments are subject to the textual “reasonable time” requirement of Rule 60(c)(1); prior suggestions that such motions can be filed “at any time” are overruled. Third, Idaho’s six-month adoption repose statute cannot constitutionally bar a “biology plus” father who received no notice and diligently sought relief; as applied to such a father, it would violate procedural due process.

Practically, petitioners in step-parent adoptions must take care to provide notice to unwed fathers who may plausibly meet the “biology plus” standard; judges should be alert to due process risks in ex parte adoption/termination settings; and practitioners should recognize that while 60(b)(4) is a potent remedial tool, it is time-bound and not a backdoor appeal. Finally, the Court’s professional admonition underscores that zealous advocacy must remain anchored in the record and applicable law. The case is remanded for a timeliness determination and, if timely, a merits adjudication of whether the termination/adoption judgment is void for lack of due process.