Case Title: Crook v. Fujino

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2009-08-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

No, 29965
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

SHANNA LET CROOK, Petitioner,

 

THE HONORABLE MELVIN H. FUJINO, JUDGE OF FANILY COURT
OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, and
THOMAS NW, PACE, Respondents.

 

ant

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(FC=P No. 08-1-108K)

 

ORDER
Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)

 

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus filed by petitioner Shawna Lei Crook and the papers in
support, it appears that the “simultaneous proceedings” provision
of HRS chapter 583A (Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)) did not apply to FC-P No. 08-1-108K
inasmuch as: (1) HRS §§ 583A-206(a) and (b) (2006) apply when a
child-custody proceeding has been commenced “in a court of
another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity
with the [UCCJEA]” and (2) the child-custedy proceeding conmenced
in California in GF0022980 was not commenced in the subject
child's home state, such that the California court did not have
jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the UCCJEA. see
HRS §5 583A-201(a) (1) and 563A-102, It further appears that the
Lifting of the stay of FC-P No. 08-1-108K was within the
discretion of the respondent judge and the lifting of the stay
was not a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion. Therefore,

petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema vy.
Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of
mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

 

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

 

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Where a court has
Giscretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or
control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has
acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her
Jurisdiction, has committed 2 flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before
the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to
act.). Accordingly,

BT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 7, 2009.

Gro

Pecsetee Cc ready ore
Goce Rett Br
Pd, lect Cum /