LANSING, Judge.

Appellant John Doe III appeals to this Court from the magistrate's order terminating his parental rights to his four children. We reverse and remand.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant John Doe ("Father") and his former wife ("Mother") are parents to four children, a girl and three boys. At the time of the hearing on the petition to terminate Father's parental rights, the girl, who suffered from spina bifida, was fifteen years of age, the twin boys were eleven years old, and the youngest boy was nine.

On September 27, 2008, Father, while under the influence of alcohol, struck one of the twin boys leaving a red mark on the boy's face. Father was arrested and charged with injury to a child. Upon observing that the family residence was filthy and unsanitary, the officers notified the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (the Department), and a social worker was sent to the scene. The children told the social worker that their father was an alcoholic whose condition was so severe that he kept a bucket next to his recliner to throw up in, and that Father sometimes hit them when he was drunk. The family was also facing eviction from their home for nonpayment of rent.

The children were deemed to be in imminent danger and were taken into the temporary custody of the Department. Father and Mother, who were then contemplating divorce, stipulated that the children had been subject to abuse and neglect, and should remain in shelter care pending an adjudicatory hearing. On further stipulation, the magistrate court ordered that the children remain in the Department's custody for an indefinite period. The order also directed that a case plan be prepared with the primary goal of reunification of the family.

On November 10, 2008, the Department filed a case plan, later approved by the court, with the stated goal of reunifying the family. The case plan recognized Father's abuse of alcohol and assigned to him tasks focused on his achieving and maintaining sobriety. It required that he be evaluated for substance abuse and "follow all recommendations for treatment," attend two Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings per week, and provide documentation of alcohol treatment and AA attendance to the Department twice per month. The plan also focused on rebuilding the parents' relationship with their children and improving their parenting abilities. To this end, the case plan called for the parents to attend parenting training and to provide a certificate of completion to the Department, attend weekly supervised visits with the children and demonstrate appropriate parenting skills during the visits, and determine whether they qualified for certain psychological and skill-building services. In addition, the case plan addressed the need for financial stability, requiring the parents to work full-time and prepare and submit biweekly budgets to the Department. The parents further agreed to provide adequate housing with sufficient bedrooms for the children "if and when the children are returned."

By the time the case plan was adopted, Father had bonded out of jail following his arrest on the charge of injury to children. Soon thereafter, he completed a substance abuse evaluation and was diagnosed as alcohol dependant. The evaluation recommended intensive outpatient treatment services. Father immediately began alcohol treatment and AA, providing documentation of attendance to the Department. He also attended three weekly visits with his children. However, in early December, Father began drinking alcohol again and, shortly thereafter, ceased contact with the Department. He was also fired from his job. Father surfaced again when he was arrested for public intoxication on January 17, 2009. He ultimately pleaded guilty to both the public intoxication charge and the injury to children charge. The same judge presiding in this case imposed sixty days in jail for the public intoxication offense, followed by probation. Father was released on probation on March 19, 2009, with sentencing on the injury to children charge still pending.

Two months later, on May 22, 2009, the Department filed a report stating that Father was "working his program," was in compliance with his probation terms, and had submitted to four alcohol tests in the preceding two months, which disclosed no alcohol use. The Department also reported that Father had been rehired by his former employer and was living at his place of employment rent-free, had completed a mental health evaluation that found no mental illness, had been attending his alcohol treatment sessions and completing his outside written assignments, and was making progress through the various programs. However, the report also said that Father had not complied with certain of his case plan provisions in that he had not yet paid any child support and had not turned in a budget or any AA attendance slips. The Department also noted that Father "was not in a position to provide a safe and stable environment for the children to reside." The Department recommended that the children remain in the Department's custody and opined that because the children had been in shelter care since September 27, 2008, "[p]ermanency needs to be decided now."

The children's guardian ad litem also filed a report in May that detailed strides made by Father in regaining employment and complying with alcohol treatment. The guardian commended Father's parenting at his weekly visitations with his children during which he helped with the children's homework, engaged them in activities, and on their birthdays brought birthday gifts and cake. The guardian concluded that Father:

since being released from jail, has made every effort to work his case plan, maintain employment, and re-establish a loving bond with his children. It is evident that when he is not using alcohol, he is a vastly different person. He appears to be earnest and anxious to comply with all that is asked of him. He frequently expresses gratitude and a willingness to do whatever is in the best interest of his children. The fear that he would relapse is ever present as well as the uncertainty that he would be available to be a resource with the possibility of further incarceration.

Based on the Department's report and arguments at a May 27, 2009, hearing, the magistrate court ordered that "the Department shall cease reunification efforts because of the failure of the parents to comply with the case plan and the parents are not in a position to provide a safe and stable environment for the children to reside." The order also directed the Department to file a petition to terminate the parents' parental rights.

The assigned social worker thereupon told Father that because reunification efforts had ceased, Father was no longer required to comply with the case plan. However, the social worker also said that Father could continue his efforts to complete the case plan and explain those efforts at the anticipated parental termination hearing. About the same time, the Department garnished Father's wages for child support owed while the children were in foster care. Father sought, and was granted, the Department's permission to continue his weekly visits with his children.

In compliance with the magistrate court's order, the Department filed a petition to terminate the parents' parental rights on July 31, 2009. As against Father, the grounds for termination were that he "did neglect the children" before they were taken into custody on September 27, 2008, and that:

the neglect has continued by his failure to perform [the] case plan. Specifically, he has continued to participate in criminal activity and has been in and out of jail. He has not completed drug and alcohol treatment. He has failed to provide financial support for the children and has failed to establish adequate housing or financial security.

The termination hearing was scheduled for November 19, 2009. In August 2009, the parents divorced.

In September 2009, the Department and the guardian filed case review reports. The Department said that Father was still employed but had not yet obtained housing for the children, that he visited his children and had been appropriate with them, and that the issue to be determined at the pending termination hearing was whether "parental rights are terminated or parents are given more time to complete a case plan." The guardian's report again commended Father for his case plan progress since the last report in May, stating:

Doe continues employment. . . . His employer also allows him to live at their office to help him become financially stable. . . . [Father] is participating in substance abuse treatment, attends several AA meetings weekly and participates in visits with his children. He has maintained employment and in fact, his employer provides him boarding in their office and has been very supportive of him. His healthy countenance and participation in the activities listed above, all suggest [Father] is remaining sober. During the visits, he is appropriate and loving with the children. He has spoken openly with them about his need for alcohol treatment and speaks positively of the children's foster parents. He has not been able to find suitable housing but has made efforts, asking the GAL to visit a prospective home to determine its suitability. He intends to contest the termination of his parental rights and still hopes desperately to be re-unified with his children. Notably, [Father] has always remained in contact and spoken willingly and graciously with the GAL.

Following receipt of these reports, on September 29, 2009, the court held a twelve-month permanency hearing. At the hearing, Father provided an overview of his efforts toward reunification and case plan progress in the four-month period following the last court hearing. The court nevertheless ordered that the termination hearing would go forward as scheduled.

Thereafter, Father filed a motion to disqualify the magistrate judge for cause, contending that the judge's comments made at the September 29 hearing showed that he had prejudged the case and was biased against Father. The judge denied the motion.

At the termination hearing, Mother consented to termination of her parental rights as to all four of the children, and the hearing proceeded as to Father. After the presentation of evidence, Father requested more time within which to finish his alcohol treatment, become more financially stable, and complete other portions of his suspended case plan. The court denied his request and orally announced that it was terminating Father's parental rights. Thereafter, the court issued a decree in which it determined that Father had abused and neglected the children and that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of Father and the children.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standards of Review

The United States Supreme Court has held that a parent's interest in maintaining a relationship with his or her child is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255-56 (1978); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59 (1982). See also In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761, 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). Concordantly, the Idaho Legislature has, in the Child Protective Act, directed "that the state of Idaho shall, to the fullest extent possible, seek to preserve, protect, enhance and reunite the family relationship." Idaho Code § 16-1601. Likewise, the Termination of Parent and Child Relationship Act states, "Implicit in this chapter is the philosophy that wherever possible family life should be strengthened and preserved. . . ." I.C. § 16-2001.

Because a fundamental liberty interest is at stake, the United States Supreme Court has determined that a court may terminate a parent-child relationship only if that decision is supported by "clear and convincing evidence." Santosky, 455 U.S. at 746; Doe v. Doe, 148 Idaho 243, 246, 220 P.3d 1062, 1065 (2009); Doe, 146 Idaho at 761, 203 P.3d at 691; State v. Doe, 143 Idaho 383, 386, 146 P.3d 649, 652 (2006). See also I.C. § 16-2009. The United States Supreme Court noted three factors that called for employment of this elevated standard of proof: the permanence and irrevocability of a termination of parental rights; the reality that "the State's ability to assemble its case almost inevitably dwarfs the parents' ability to mount a defense"; and the imprecision of the standards to be applied, such as "the best interest of the child," which "leave determinations unusually open to the subjective values of the judge." Santosky, 455 U.S. at 759-63.

On appeal from a decision terminating parental rights, this Court examines whether the decision is supported by substantial and competent evidence, which means "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Doe, 148 Idaho at 245-46, 220 P.3d at 1064-65. The appellate court "will indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's judgment when reviewing an order that parental rights be terminated." Id. See also In re Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 346, 144 P.3d 597, 600 (2006). The Idaho Supreme Court has also said, however, that, "the substantial evidence test requires a greater quantum of evidence in cases where the trial court finding must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, than in cases where a mere preponderance is required." Id. Clear and convincing evidence "is generally understood to be `[e]vidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.'" In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191, 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 577 (7th ed. 1999)). Further, "the magistrate's decision must be supported by `objectively supportable grounds.'" Doe, 143 Idaho at 346, 144 P.3d at 600.

B. Grounds for Termination

Idaho Code § 16-2005 authorizes termination of the parent/child relationship when it is in the child's best interest and any one of several factors exist, including neglect or abuse. Here, the Department's petition is based on allegations of neglect. A "neglected" child is defined in I.C. § 16-1602(25)(a) and (b) as one:

(a) Who is without proper parental care and control, or subsistence, medical or other care or control necessary for his well-being because of the conduct or omission of his parents, guardian or other custodian or their neglect or refusal to provide them . . . or

(b) Whose parents, guardian or other custodian are unable to discharge their responsibilities to and for the child and, as a result of such inability, the child lacks the parental care necessary for his health, safety or well-being. . . .

C. The Magistrate's Decision to Terminate Father's Parental Rights Was Erroneous

The magistrate court held that Father had abused and neglected his children and that termination was in their best interests and the best interest of Father. On appeal, Father does not challenge the finding that, prior to removal of the children from his home, they were neglected and mistreated. At the termination hearing, Father described his past conduct as "despicable" and said that he was "appalled at myself." Father argues, however, that the magistrate erred in finding that termination was in the best interests of himself and the children and was warranted as of the date of the termination hearing because uncontroverted evidence showed that he had made and was continuing to make substantial strides in treatment for his alcoholism, maintaining sobriety, rebuilding a loving relationship with his children, and achieving financial stability that would enable him to provide appropriate housing for his children. He contends that in light of his progress that was demonstrated at the termination hearing, the magistrate erred in refusing to allow Father additional time to continue that progress and prepare to resume custody of his children. We agree.

First, we note that the trial court's decision faults Father for noncompletion of some case plan tasks that were not actually part of his case plan. For example, the decree states that Father "has not completed anger management counseling," but anger management counseling was not referenced in the case plan. Father nevertheless had recognized a need for such counseling and had voluntarily enrolled in such a program about six weeks before the termination hearing. The decree also faults Father for not having a driver's license which, again, was not required by the case plan. Both Father and his employer testified, however, that he was taking all steps necessary to reinstate his driver's license.

The substantive focus of the case plan called for Father to address three major deficiencies before the children would be returned to him: he was required to overcome his alcohol abuse, build a healthy relationship with his children and gain parenting skills, and achieve financial stability so that he could provide a proper home. The magistrate's findings gave little or no acknowledgement to the strides that Father had made toward each of these primary goals. We will examine the trial evidence and the magistrate's corresponding findings on each of these.

To address Father's alcohol abuse, the case plan called for him to cease alcohol use, be tested for alcohol periodically, attend AA meetings and alcohol treatment classes, and submit documentary proof of compliance with these requirements to the Department. The evidence at the termination hearing showed that shortly after the case plan was adopted in mid-November 2008, Father completed a substance abuse evaluation, began AA and alcohol treatment, and provided documentation of his attendance to the Department. Although he relapsed in December and was arrested for public intoxication in January 2009, the evidence showed that after his release from jail on March 19, 2009, he consistently passed all alcohol tests and maintained sobriety through the date of the termination hearing. Father testified without contradiction that since his release from jail in March, he had been working more than full-time, attending AA meetings one to three times per week, and attending prescribed alcohol treatment classes Monday through Thursday for two to three hours per evening. In addition, he voluntarily attended a support group for three to four hours each Friday night at a church. Father said that he had learned that his first priority must be sobriety, and without that, addressing his children's needs was not possible. Father gave no excuses for his return to drinking in December 2008 or his arrest for public intoxication in January 2009; rather, he expressed appreciation for the trial court's jailing him for two months to "dry out," and said that this had brought him to his senses.

Testimony of his treatment providers confirmed that Father had ceased alcohol use and vigorously pursued treatment throughout the eight-month period after his March 19 release. One provider described the intensive outpatient program as requiring class attendance four evenings per week, approximately three hours per night, as well as completion of outside work. She gave glowing assessments of Father's participation, stating that he attended all classes, completed all assignments, was frank regarding his struggles with alcohol, and had remained sober. A written report from an alcohol treatment supervisor likewise said Father's progress was excellent, and that "[i]n my opinion and years of doing drug and alcohol counseling, [Father] is really truly and honestly working his program. [Father] made mistakes in the past and is working hard towards healing himself so that he can be an excellent father to his children whom he loves very much." Another letter from the treatment provider agency concluded:

I know [Father] has a long history of alcoholic problems in the community. I know he has long rejected any type of help. I am here to share that he is and has been receptive to help for the past 9 months and is continuing to seek this support. I hope that my letter will find an opening to consider him having access and a chance to reunite with his children.

After receipt of this very positive evidence about Father's success and dedication to maintaining his sobriety, the magistrate's related findings were:

When he got out of jail he did begin to work parts of the case plan. He began alcohol treatment and has apparently remained sober. His sobriety has been at the top of his priorities, but he has not been faithful at reporting his progress or his attendance at AA meetings to the Department; . . . by his admission, he had not completed alcohol treatment to the date of the hearing.

These findings give inadequate attention to the uncontroverted evidence that since March 2009, Father had faithfully complied with the case plan requirements that he cease using alcohol, obtain alcohol treatment, participate in AA, and obtain regular testing. The implication in the magistrate's decision that Father was not in compliance with the case plan because he had not "completed alcohol treatment to the date of the hearing," is incorrect because the case plan contains no completion date for the alcohol treatment, and there was no evidence that Father was failing to make timely and satisfactory progress through the treatment program. The findings also focused on Father's omission to submit written reports to the Department. This focus not only elevates a minor reporting element of the case plan above its far more substantive and significant requirements of behavior change, but also fails to recognize that following the court's May 2009 order directing the Department to cease reunification efforts, the case plan was no longer in effect, and Father therefore was no longer required to submit reports to the Department.

With respect to the second principal goal of the case plan — that Father develop an appropriate parental relationship with his children and acquire parenting skills — the uncontroverted evidence again demonstrated great progress by Father. Numerous witnesses testified that immediately after the children were removed from the family home, they feared their father and dreaded visitation with him, but after March 2009, this had changed. The boys' foster father testified that they initially "wanted nothing to do" with Father, but after interacting with him during the post-March weekly visitations, the boys thought their father "near perfect" and "couldn't say anything wrong about their dad." He also testified the fifteen-year-old daughter had a calendar on which she was marking the days to the termination hearing because she expected to be reunited with her father that day. A Department employee who had supervised approximately thirty weekly visits said that, after initially being apprehensive, the children warmed up to Father; and that Father had changed over time, had evidenced that he was ashamed of his prior treatment of his children, had apologized to the children for hurting them, and had cried in their presence. She said that Father was also physically improved in that he was now "well kept." She testified that she never observed any inappropriate behavior by Father during the visits and never smelled alcohol on him or suspected that he had been drinking before a visit. A treatment provider said that when she observed Father with the children, he was kind and nurturing and that he desperately wished to be reunited with them. A Department social worker said that since March 2009 he "appears to be sober and happy and clean and a hard worker" and has a good relationship with his children. Father acknowledged that he had not yet begun a parenting class required by his case plan because there had been no time in his schedule for it in addition to his alcohol treatment, other classes and AA commitments, but that he was scheduled to start the parenting class in about one week upon completion of one of his alcohol treatment classes. The children insisted on testifying at the termination hearing. They acknowledged that they were better cared for by their foster parents than they had been in the family home when Father was drinking, but now that he was sober, they expressed excitement at the prospect of being reunited with him.

The magistrate's findings make no mention of Father's relationship with his children or his behavior during weekly visitations. The only related finding is that "he has not completed parenting training." The finding includes no acknowledgement that schedule conflicts for some of the classes and treatment requirements of the case plan precluded Father from participating in all of them at the same time.

The third and final primary factor that the case plan required Father to address was his financial situation and ability to provide suitable housing for the children. On this issue, the evidence again demonstrated that Father had made commendable progress. That evidence included the testimony of Father's employer, the owner of a multi-site car wash business. He said that Father had worked as manager of one of the car wash sites from 1997 to 1999, and that in 2005 the employer contacted Father to convince him to return to the business, to which Father agreed. Thereafter, Father's alcohol abuse became evident, and when he failed to appear for work in December 2008, the employer fired him. When Father was released from jail in March 2009, however, the employer rehired him, but started Father at a low level job. The employer said that Father had worked his way back to the position of manager, with responsibility for supervising, hiring, and firing other employees. The employer said that the business had been operating at a loss when Father resumed management and that he quickly brought the business back to profitability. According to the employer, Father was working six days per week at a salary of $2,000 per month plus incentives and a percentage of the profit. He said that another manager with the same salary plan at a smaller car wash facility owned by the employer had earned $47,000 the prior year, and that the employer expected that Father could earn that much or more in the upcoming year. The employer testified that Father currently had limited disposable income because his wages had been garnished by the Department for child support and there were separate garnishments for Father's and Mother's medical and vehicle debts. The employer said that he allowed Father to reside rent-free in the business's office so that he could save money to provide housing for his children if they were returned to his custody. The employer confirmed that Father was attending treatment after work each night and was working diligently to get his driver's license reinstated. He said that once relicensed, Father would receive the use of a company vehicle with a gas allowance.

The employer also said that to aid Father in his efforts to regain custody, he had contacted a realtor and found an appropriate four-bedroom house for sale or rent (the record is unclear) that would serve the needs of the children, and that the employer was willing and able to immediately make a "down payment" to acquire the home for Father. The payment had not yet been made because the employer first wanted to know if the magistrate was going to terminate Father's parental rights as the payment would be wasted if Father did not regain custody. Father testified that in addition to garnishments for child support and past debts, he was paying fees for his mandated drug tests and for probation supervision. Father acknowledged that at present, he was not financially able to provide a proper home for his children, but believed that in three to four months he could do so.

In the face of this information about Father's earning capacity and his prospect for acquisition of appropriate housing, the magistrate's only relevant findings were that Father was "currently living in his employer's car wash office and has no home for the children to return to" and "has provided no budgeting information to the Department, and has, thus, not demonstrated financial stability to raise his children." Once again, instead of giving attention to Father's progress on substantive issues, the magistrate court focused on Father's noncompliance with reporting requirements that actually had not been applicable since May 2009 when the court ordered cessation of reunification efforts and Father was informed that the case plan no longer applied. The magistrate's decision also did not take into account the effect on Father's ability to obtain appropriate housing caused by the Department's choice to garnish his wages to pay for child support at a rate of approximately $600 per month.

A judicial evaluation of whether termination of parental rights is warranted must take into account practicalities of a parent's individual situation, as illustrated in Doe v. State, 137 Idaho 758, 53 P.3d 341 (2002), where the father was imprisoned and had never seen his two-year-old son. His parental rights were terminated on findings that he had abandoned and neglected the child. Our Supreme Court reversed, stating:

There is an issue, however, of what actions Doe could have taken, once in prison, to maintain contact with his child. Doe sent his child gifts and made efforts to contact the child through the Department and through the child's maternal grandmother, but he was unsuccessful. One must ask what more could Doe have done? The Department's argument is that he could have completed the "rider" program successfully and gotten out of prison early. The magistrate accepted this as evidence of abandonment. That is not the type of substantial competent evidence that supports a finding by clear and convincing standard of abandonment. The Department trivializes Doe's efforts to have a relationship with his son. Reality must play a part at two levels: 1) Doe was severely restricted in what he could do. Within that context he tried to establish a relationship. 2) The Department did little or nothing to assist in that effort. The Department focused on the best interest of the child — laudable in the abstract but without regard for the parental rights possessed by Doe.

Id. at 761-762, 53 P.3d at 344-45.

Likewise, the practical realities of Father's financial situation must be considered. He was indigent and being evicted from his home when he was initially arrested and his children were removed. Father spent the next two months in jail before he was able to bond out. He worked for about a month before he began drinking again and lost his job. From mid-March 2009, when he was released from jail, Father was continuously employed, working his way up to the position of manager. He was working more than forty hours each week, but much of his paycheck was consumed by garnishments, supervision fees and alcohol testing fees required as terms of his probation. The Department did little or nothing to assist in Father's efforts to improve his financial capacity but, rather, diminished it by garnishing his wages. The evidence indicated that Father had done all he reasonably could to improve his financial situation, that he potentially could earn in excess of $45,000 per year, and that there was a reasonable prospect that he soon would be able to provide a suitable home for his children. That he was not able to do so immediately on the date of the termination hearing does not demonstrate that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate his parental rights.

The magistrate's determination that termination was in the best interest of Father's children relied in part upon opinion testimony of the social worker and the guardian ad litem, both of whom recommended termination. We conclude that the reliance on these opinions was misplaced because the reasons given by these witnesses for their recommendations do not withstand scrutiny. The guardian, after repeatedly filing reports lauding Father's progress and efforts to reunite with his children, recommended termination because "it's too large of a gamble to gamble on the father's sobriety, that conditions in the home wouldn't revert back to the conditions they had before." That is, because Father could not provide a guarantee that he would never use alcohol again, the guardian was of the view that his parental rights should be terminated. Were the guardian's reasoning adopted, no parent with an addiction would ever be able to regain custody of his or her child. That is not the standard under Idaho law for terminating a parent's fundamental right to a relationship with his children. The social worker's reasons for recommending termination were similarly unconvincing. He said that because of Father's incarcerations, he had not been a resource for the children from the time the children were taken into shelter care in late September 2008 until he was released from jail in mid-March 2009. This recommendation ignores all of Father's progress and accomplishments from mid-March forward and the evidence that he never missed a visitation opportunity when not incarcerated and had exhibited appropriate and nurturing parenting behavior during visitations.

It appears that the guardian, the social worker, and the court may have incorrectly viewed the court's only options at the termination hearing as either to terminate Father's parental rights on that day or return the children to Father on that day. That was not the choice, however. The only issue presented was whether Father's parental rights would be terminated at that time, not whether he was able to resume custody immediately. If termination had been denied, the children would have remained in foster care pending further proceedings. As Father urges on appeal, the court could have allowed additional time for Father to demonstrate whether he would be able to secure appropriate housing, improve his financial situation, and continue his commitment to sobriety; and his efforts could have been aided by the Department resuming a role of working to facilitate reunification.

This case bears considerable resemblance to In re Doe, 142 Idaho 594, 130 P.3d 1132 (2006), where an infant was placed in foster care due to the mother's (Roe's) failure to provide adequate care. After Roe's completion of a case plan, the child was returned to her under protective supervision, but six months later the child was removed again because Roe was arrested for selling methamphetamine and using illegal drugs. Another reunification plan was adopted during which Roe began to turn her life around. She married, submitted to drug testing which she passed, and through supervised visitation developed an emotional bond with the child and was learning appropriate parenting. The trial court terminated Roe's parental rights, but the Idaho Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by focusing on Roe's criminal record and her behavior two years earlier while disregarding her case plan progress and success in becoming a better parent. The Court said that the testimony demonstrated that:

. . . Roe created a stable life, made her children her priority, successfully complied with and went beyond the court orders and the reunification plan, attended counseling and Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and was not likely to relapse or become involved with criminal activity again. Further, contrary to the magistrate court's findings, the evidence indicates that [her child] and the parental termination action were a motivating factor in Roe's decision to straighten out her life and for Roe's successful compliance with the reunification plan and probation.

Id. at 598, 130 P.3d at 1136. Much the same comments could be said of Father in the present case.

The Roe Court also said:

The magistrate division also erred by making what appears to be a subjective, rather than an objective decision. In family law cases, there is a "requirement of explicit findings [which] encourages a trial judge to rely upon objectively supportable grounds for his decision, and discourages subjective or attitude-influenced perceptions of the case. Without [an] objective basis, trial court fact-finding [becomes] . . . a soft spot in the administration of justice." Donndelinger v. Donndelinger, 107 Idaho 431, 437, 690 P.2d 366, 372 (Ct. App. 1984).

Id. at 599, 130 P.3d at 1137.

Also instructive is the Idaho Supreme Court's decision in Schultz v. Schultz, 145 Idaho 859, 187 P.3d 1234 (2008), where the Court discussed a trial court's duties when considering the best interests of a child in the context of a child custody dispute in a divorce action. The Court criticized the magistrate for basing his best-interest-of-the-child decision on only one factor — the distance between the father and child that was created by the mother's move to Oregon. The Court said that this over-emphasis on a single factor, and the failure to consider other relevant factors in evaluating the best interests of the child, constituted an abuse of discretion. Id. at 865, 187 P.3d at 1240. The Court concluded, "The magistrate court should have examined all the evidence to determine [the child's] best interest and reached a supported, well reasoned conclusion before entering its order. Since the Court failed in this duty, it abused its discretion." Id. at 866, 187 P.3d at 1241.

We conclude that the magistrate court made much the same errors in this case as were found to have occurred in Roe and Schultz. The court's decision placed excessive emphasis upon Father's admittedly abhorrent behavior prior to the removal of the children from his home and upon minor noncompliance with reporting requirements that had not been in effect for half a year prior to the termination hearing, while disregarding or giving minimal attention to the compelling evidence of Father's success in overcoming alcoholism, complying with treatment requirements, maintaining remunerative employment, and becoming a nurturing parent with whom the children had developed a strong bond. The evidentiary record does not provide objectively supportable grounds for the trial court's decision that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children and Father at the time of the termination hearing. Therefore, the decision of the magistrate court must be reversed and the case remanded.

D. Motion to Disqualify the Magistrate for Cause

Because we have reversed the termination decision on the merits, it is unnecessary to determine whether the magistrate judge erred in denying Father's motion for disqualification at the time the motion was made. However, because the child protective proceedings will continue in the magistrate division hereafter, it is appropriate to examine Father's claim of judicial bias as it may affect future proceedings.

Father's motion to disqualify the judge was based on the judge's comments at a September 29, 2009, "permanency hearing." After Father had provided an overview of his efforts toward reunification and case plan progress in the four-month period following the last court hearing, the magistrate responded:

I appreciate that. I see nothing to change my mind. I can't let these kids risk this again. You fall off the wagon, these kids go through this again. Your case is legendary, Mr. [Doe], in child protection circles.

As badly tortured as these kids were, I have to tell you that, and I know you're trying now, but I'm not willing to risk those kids going through this again. Your little girl with no diapers. I lay awake at night thinking about this case, and I have not changed my mind. I will not change my mind at this point. We'll go ahead with the [termination] hearing as planned.

Thereafter, Doe filed a motion to disqualify the magistrate for cause, contending that the comments at the permanency hearing showed that the magistrate had prejudged the case and was biased against Doe. At a hearing, the magistrate orally denied the motion, stating:

As regard to my position on termination, I have not made up my mind, and that's not what I was determining when I made those comments. What I was determining, as [the attorney for the guardian ad litem] appropriately pointed out, was whether the termination hearing should go ahead or not. That's what I understood I was arguing about, not — I wasn't arguing the question of termination.

This is a first for me, so I did a little research, and one comment stood out particularly to me in that — from AMJUR, "A judge's ordinary and natural reaction to the conduct of or evidence developed about a party in a case before him cannot create a disqualification for bias or prejudice."

I am repulsed by the reports I read, and I can't get over that. I lay awake at night thinking about that, thinking about these little children. That's very true. And I think that is an ordinary, natural reaction to anyone who heard the children were forced to drink vomit out of a bucket when their father was so intoxicated he didn't know what he was doing. How can anybody else in this room act without anything but revulsion? And I'll take that one to the U.S. Supreme Court any day, [counsel].

With that, sir, I am going to deny your motion. I am not biased. I understand this is a matter of discretion. As a matter of discretion I will deny the motion for the reasons I've stated.

On appeal, the parties' arguments focus not on whether the magistrate judge was biased, but rather on whether that bias was impermissibly gained from an "extrajudicial source" in light of the comment that Father's reprehensible conduct was "legendary in child support circles." These arguments focusing on the source of the alleged bias are inapposite in view of current Idaho law regarding motions for disqualification.

Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 40(d)(2)(A)(4) provides for disqualification for cause if the presiding judge is "biased or prejudiced for or against any party or the case in the action." In United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that to be disqualifying, the alleged bias or prejudice "must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case." For a number of years Idaho appellate courts followed the Grinnell standard. Samuel v. Hepworth, Nungester Lezamiz, Inc., 134 Idaho 84, 88, 996 P.2d 303, 307 (2000); State, Dep't of Health Welfare v. Doe, 133 Idaho 826, 829, 992 P.2d 1226, 1229 (Ct. App. 1999); Hays v. Craven, 131 Idaho 761, 763, 963 P.2d 1198, 1200 (Ct. App. 1998); State v. Elliott, 126 Idaho 323, 329, 882 P.2d 978, 984 (Ct. App. 1994); Liebelt v. Liebelt, 125 Idaho 302, 306, 870 P.2d 9, 13 (Ct. App. 1994); Desfosses v. Desfosses, 120 Idaho 27, 29, 813 P.2d 366, 368 (Ct. App. 1991). However, both the United States Supreme Court and the Idaho Supreme Court have abandoned this approach. In Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994), the Court held that "[t]he fact that an opinion held by a judge derives from a source outside judicial proceedings is not a necessary condition for `bias or prejudice' recusal, since predispositions developed during the course of a trial will sometimes (albeit rarely) suffice. Nor is it a sufficient condition for `bias or prejudice' recusal, since some opinions acquired outside the context of judicial proceedings (for example, the judge's view of the law acquired in scholarly reading) will not suffice." Id. at 554 (emphasis in original). Recently, in Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784, 229 P.3d 1146 (2010), the Idaho Supreme Court, following the reasoning of Liteky, implicitly overruled the prior Idaho cases. Our Supreme Court held that whatever the source of the bias or prejudice, it must be "so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment," that "unless there is a demonstration of `pervasive bias' derived either from an extrajudicial source or facts and events occurring at trial, there is no basis for judicial recusal." Id. at 791-92, 229 P.3d at 1153-54 (emphasis added). The Court stated that "the standard for recusal of a judge, based simply on information that he has learned in the course of judicial proceedings, is extremely high." Id. at 792, 229 P.3d at 1154.

In ruling on Doe's motion for disqualification, the trial judge applied the "extrajudicial source" rule that has subsequently been overruled by the Idaho Supreme Court in Bach. Therefore, on remand, the magistrate court should reconsider Father's motion for disqualification in light of the standards set forth in Bach.

III. CONCLUSION

The magistrate court's order terminating Father's parental rights is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs to appellant.

Judge GUTIERREZ CONCURS.