wants them “to come home.” Department case worker, Jason Hooper, also testified that there was no question that Doe loves the children. However, as the Idaho Supreme Court has observed, “a child may not live on parental affection alone.” State ex rel. Child v. Clouse, 93 Idaho 893, 896, 477 P.2d 834, 837 (1970); see also Doe, 147 Idaho at 355, 209 P.3d at 652 (noting that “while Appellants love their kids ‘dearly,’ their efforts to improve their parenting skills were not consistent or long-lasting”). Hooper also testified that he believed termination was in the best interests of the children because they had been “in the system” for over two years and needed to be placed in a permanent, safe, and stable home. See In Interest of S. W., 127 Idaho 513, 518, 903 P.2d 102, 107 (Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). The children’s foster parent, Lacy Widdison,
holding that department employee opinions were relevant and admissible as they could aid the magistrate in determining facts surrounding the care of the children and what would be in their best interests holding that although parents have a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children they have no fundamental right to allocate support to their children as they see fit recognizing that because the state has cognizable interests in the safety of children in its jurisdiction neglectful parents may be separated from their children holding that the finder of fact is given broad discretion in determining what promotes the childrens best interests holding that where parents have previously stipulated that the children should be adjudicated as being in need of aid ocs still has the burden of proving in the subsequent termination of parental rights proceeding by clear and convincing evidence that the children were in need of aid