Case Title: In re N.C.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2009-08-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
Considered by:  Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald,
1
JJ.
NO. 28294
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
IN THE INTEREST OF N.C., a Minor
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(FC-J NO. 0063855)
ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(By:  Duffy, J., for the court1)
On November 5, 2009, Petitioners/Parents-Appellants 
(Parents) filed an application for writ of certiorari, pursuant
to Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40.1, seeking
further review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ June 26,
2009 summary disposition order in In re NC, No. 28294, and
October 28, 2009 judgment on appeal.
This court has previously stated that “[b]ecause
standing is a jurisdictional issue that may be addressed at any
stage of a case, an appellate court has jurisdiction to resolve
questions regarding standing, even if that determination
ultimately precludes jurisdiction over the merits.”  Keahole
Defense Coal., Inc. v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res., 110 Hawai#i
419, 427-28, 134 P.3d 585, 593-94 (2006).
Additionally, “[i]n the absence of well recognized
exceptions, this court has clearly held that ‘[c]onstitutional
rights may not be vicariously asserted.’”  Freitas v. Admin. Dir.
of Courts, 104 Hawai#i 483, 486, 92 P.3d 993, 996 (2004)
(footnote omitted) (quoting Kaneohe Bay Cruises, Inc. v. Hirata,
75 Haw. 250, 256, 861 P.2d 1, 9 (1993)).  “Exceptions to the rule
against vicarious assertion of constitutional rights include the
right to privacy and First Amendment rights.”  Tauese v. State,
2
Dep’t of Labor & Indus. Relations, 113 Hawai#i 1, 28, 147 P.3d
785, 812 (2006) (citing Freitas, 104 Hawai#i at 486 n.6, 92 P.3d
at 996 n.6); see also State v. Kam, 69 Haw. 483, 488, 748 P.2d
372, 375 (1988).  
Parents do not argue that they fall within any
exception recognized by this court to the rule against vicarious
assertion of constitutional rights.  Further, Parents do not
indicate why NC cannot assert his own constitutional rights, as
he did when he was represented by counsel before the Family Court
and the ICA.  Indeed, NC has until January 26, 2010 to file an
application for writ of certiorari.  
As Parents have not demonstrated that they have
standing to vicariously assert the constitutional rights of NC in
the questions presented to this court,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Parents’ application is
dismissed without prejudice.
DATED:  Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 9, 2009.
FOR THE COURT:
Associate Justice
Christopher J. Roehrig
for petitioners/parents-
appellants on the 
application