Court Identifies Legal Gap in Public Defense Coverage

The Idaho Supreme Court ruled this week that a law passed during the 2025 legislative session could delay or even derail adoption and parental rights termination cases across the state, finding that some low-income parents may be left without court-appointed attorneys in certain proceedings.

The ruling centers on Senate Bill 1181, enacted in 2025 as part of a broader overhaul of Idaho’s public defense system. The law consolidated public defense from county-level offices into a single statewide agency. In doing so, justices found, it inadvertently removed any mechanism for courts to appoint publicly funded legal representation for indigent parents in cases brought by private parties — such as one parent seeking to terminate another’s parental rights — rather than by the state Department of Health and Welfare.

Chief Justice Calls on Legislature to Act

Chief Justice G. Richard Bevan, writing for the court, described the issue as urgent. “This gap created by Senate Bill 1181 is a vitally important matter that needs to be addressed by the Idaho Legislature,” Bevan wrote in the opinion published Tuesday. He warned that without a fix, cases could face serious delays or outright dismissal, and that children awaiting adoption could be left in legal limbo.

For more than six decades, Idaho law gave parents who could not afford legal representation a categorical right to a publicly funded attorney in parental rights termination cases. SB 1181 preserved that right for state-initiated proceedings — those brought by the Department of Health and Welfare — but left a gap for privately initiated cases.

Bevan noted that due process protections under U.S. Supreme Court precedent can still require legal representation for parents in private termination cases. But because Idaho courts can no longer compel the State Public Defender’s Office or county governments to provide that representation, the right becomes effectively unenforceable. “The legislature has eliminated the options available to courts for appointment of counsel at public expense,” he wrote.

Attorneys Say They Raised These Concerns in 2025

The ruling came more than a year after child welfare attorneys testified against the bill during the 2025 session, warning it could undercut parents’ access to counsel. Mary Shea, a Pocatello attorney who was among those who testified, said the court’s opinion described precisely the problem she tried to flag at the time.

“It’s an invitation to the Legislature to fix this, and to provide some kind of a funding mechanism so that those private terminations and adoptions can continue to proceed,” Shea said. She also noted that Idaho already faces a shortage of attorneys capable of meeting low-income and pro bono legal needs statewide.

The State Public Defender’s Office said in a statement that it had not been assigned any private termination cases since the court took up the matter in October. Spokesperson Patrick Orr said the office’s position has remained consistent: it handles indigent defense and Child Protective Act cases where the state seeks to intervene in a parent-child relationship, but cannot take on private termination proceedings.

Lawmakers Signal Willingness to Revisit the Issue

Two Republican legislators who sponsored the original bill acknowledged the court’s findings and indicated they are prepared to pursue corrective legislation when the Legislature reconvenes.

Sen. Todd Lakey of Nampa, the bill’s original sponsor, said he remains cautious about expanding taxpayer-funded legal costs but recognized the constitutional obligation. “I recognize that there is a certain situation where it’s constitutionally required,” Lakey said, adding that he wants any fix to be carefully targeted to only those circumstances.

Rep. Dustin Manwaring of Pocatello, a cosponsor, said he already has ideas for legislation and committed to seeing the issue through. “When representation is appointed and is constitutionally required, then we need to clarify who’s picking up the tab for that,” Manwaring said.

What Comes Next

The Idaho Legislature adjourned its 2026 session in April, meaning no legislative remedy is possible until lawmakers return in 2027. In the meantime, courts handling privately initiated parental rights cases face the dilemma the Supreme Court identified: parents who may be constitutionally entitled to representation but have no mechanism through which to receive it.

The ruling adds to a broader set of challenges surrounding Idaho’s ongoing public defense reforms — a system that has faced scrutiny over funding, staffing, and constitutional compliance. Cases involving crimes against children and family court proceedings have drawn increasing attention at both the state and county level as Idaho’s legal infrastructure continues to evolve.

Idaho’s public defense restructuring and its downstream effects on family law proceedings are expected to be a topic of discussion ahead of the 2027 legislative session. Advocates for low-income families and child welfare attorneys are likely to press for legislative action before another session gets underway.