Title: GP v. LP

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-15-0000348
31-MAR-2016
08:21 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATTREPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) failing to take into account a violation by LP of
the "Clean Hands" section of the 1997 Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) ;

(5) finding that Ohio would be a more convenient forum
for GP; and

(6) refusing to allow GP to testify regarding matters
relevant to whether Ohio was an inconvenient forum.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, as

 

as the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude GP's
appeal is without merit.

GP challenges the family court's March 20, 2015
decision that "pursuant to [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 583A-
207(b) (8) (2006 Repl.)], Onio is more familiar with the facts and
issues of the pending custody litigation." The family court
determined, “[clonsidering all of the factors set forth in [HRS]
$583A-207 [(2006 Repl.}], that Hawaii is an inconvenient for
and decline[d) to exercise jurisdiction of the custody case.”

In 2002, the Hawai'i legislature adopted the UCCJEA,
codified in HRS §§ 583A-101 et seq. The UCCJEA governs
jurisdictional issues that arise in interstate child custody
proceedings. NBv. Gh, 133 Hawai'i 436, 440, 329 P.3d 341, 345
(app. 2014) .

Inconvenient Forun
GP argues that the family court erred in finding that
Hawai'l was an inconvenient forum under HRS § 583A-207* and

 

 

* gas § 5834-207 provide:

 

5834-207 Inconvenient forum.
State which has

child-custody
Surisatction at

 
  
   

to make a

 

sorun, ‘a court of this State shail consider wh

appropriate for 8 cou

Serisdiction. For shis pazpose, she court shall allow the
Tontinved. ..)

     
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

contends that the Ohio court would be a more inconvenient forum
because the family court "failed to take into account [GP's]
extreme hardship in traveling to and lodging in Ohio, especially
each time {LP} violated court orders there, and disregarded
[ep's) offer and ability to fly and house [12] and the children
at his expense in Kauai." GP also argues that he “was not
allowed to fully testify to the sicknesses of the children and to
the continued operations of his business[.]"

 

continued)
parties to subait information and’ shall consider alt
Relevant factors, including:

 

(2) Wnether donestic violence has occurred and is
y to continue in she feture and which state
Gould best protect the parties and the childs

 

 

(2) The Lengeh of tine the child has resided outside
thie Seater

(3) The distance between the court in this state
the court in the stare that would assume
Surtsatetion:

ne

 

 

(4) the renati
partless

Einancial cizoumstances of the

 

(5). Any agreanent of the parties as to which state
should aseune Jurisdictions

(6) The nature and Location of the evidence required
fovresolve the pending Litigation, including
testimony of the oniid

 

(7) Phe ability of the court of each state to decide
je expeditiously and tne procedures
‘the evisience?

 

  

(8) The familiarity of the court of each state with
the facts and issues in the pending Litigatior
and

 

(3) The physic
parties

 

‘and paychologica) health of the

(c) If @ court of shis State determines that it is an
Anconvensent forum and that a court of another state ie 2
more appropriate forut, it shall stay the preceedings upon
Condition that a child-custedy proceeding be prompts}
Senmenced in ancther designared state and may impose any
Sther condition the court considers Just and proper:

 

   

 

(a) A court of this State may decline to exercise its
jurisdiction under this chapter ita child-custody
determination is incidental te an action for divorce or
Snother proceeding, while still Tetsiaing jurisdiction over
the divorce or other proceeding,

3

 

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

At the hearing before the family court, attorney Andrew
Wick, who was representing LP in the pending Ohio case, testified
that LP had seventeen witnesses to call before the Ohio court.
None of the witnesses were located in Hawai'i. GP had twelve
witnesses on his list for the Ohio custody proceeding, with three
located in Hawai'i, two of whom were scheduled to appear
telephonically.

LP testified that GP was physically and verbally
abusive towards her and their children. LP also testified that
her financial situation prevented her from flying to Hawai'i or
flying her witnesses to Hawai'i if the custody proceedings were
held in Hawai'i.

GP testified at the jurisdiction hearing that he never
abused LP or the children. GP testified that he and LP agreed to
dismiss the proceedings in Ohio while they attempted counseling
in Iowa, He also testified that he bought LP plane tickets to
Hawai'i and arranged for a house for LP and the children in Kaua'i
for the custody proceedings in the family court.

As to his financial situation, GP estimated that his
salary was $1,600 per month, but that he could raise his salary
to pay for the custody proceedings. GP testified that he
received financial assistance from family menbers for the custody
proceedings and could request more assistance for future
proceedings.

Regarding the inconvenience of litigating the custody
dispute in Onio, GP testified,
I live, and the kids, you know, were from Tennessee and then from
here. There's a lot of unfairness." GP testified that it was
difficult to respond to motions filed in Ohio, stating, "I'm
trying to stay in a hotel and, you know, it's--just trying to
stay in a hotel, trying to reach attorneys, constantly
frustrating because I'm trying to see my children, and it's--it's
expensive, and it's a long way. It's a 10,000 mile trip." GP
testified that he was willing to purchase plane tickets for LP
and the children to offset the cost of litigating in Hawai'l. GP
testified that he believed that flying LP and the children to
Hawai'l would be cheaper than flying himself to Ohio for custody

 

t is 5,000 miles away fron where
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

proceedings, taking into consideration lost income from his newly
established business.

GP also testified about a number of instances in which
LP attempted to block his visitation rights with the children.
‘The family court noted that these attempts were relevant to the
issue of custody and the evidence of these instances would be in
onio.

GP's firet argument that the family court “failed to
take into account [GP's] extreme hardship in traveling to and
lodging in Ohio" is unsupported by the record. The family court
heard his testimony regarding the cost of traveling to, staying
in hotels, and renting homes in Ohio. GP also testified to the
family court about the impact traveling to Ohio would have on)his
business in Kaua'i. GP asserts on appeal that he was precluded
from fully testifying about the “continued operations of his
business," but the line of questioning at the hearing relating to
his continued business operations were offered to establish GP's
ties to Hawai'i. GP's testimony was explicitly not offered to

 

establish his financial circumstances, one of the factors
enumerated in HRS § 583-207(b).

GP's next argument that the family court "disregarded
(GP's) offer and ability to fly and house [LP] and the children
at his expense in Kauai" is likewise unsupported by the record.
Ge testified as to his willingness to fly LP and the children to
Kaua'i and to provide them with temporary housing. GP provides
no evidence to support his contention that the family court
disregarded his testimony in determining that Hawai'i was an
inconvenient forum.

GP's argument that he "was not allowed to fully testify
to the sicknesses of the children” fails because GP has not
demonstrated that the health of hig children was relevant to the
family court's determination that Hawai'i was an inconvenient
forum. GP does not argue that his children's health is related
to any of the factors enumerated in HRS § 583A-207(b) and does
not make any argument.that his children's health is otherwise

 

relevant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

Based on the testimony presented to the family court
vant to the factors in HRS § 583A-207(b), we hold that the
family court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Hawai'i
was an inconvenient forum and Ohio was a more convenient forum
for the custody dispute.’
IX, Unjuatifiable Conduct

GP contends the family court should have considered
up's alleged violation of HRS § 583A-208 (2006 Repl.)‘ because LP
“abduct [ed] the children to Ohio without the consent of [GP]" and
“gained a significant advantage by filing motions in Ohio that
enabled her to retain the children there due to the hardships and
inequities faced by [GP] in litigating the matter in Ohio."

LP, who GP argues “engaged in unjustifiable conduct,"
is not "seeking to invoke [the family court's)
jurisdiction . . . ." See HRS § 583A-208(a). HRS § 583A-208(a)
therefore does not apply to the family court in this case, and

 

GP's argument is without merit.
XXX, Other Arguments

Given our conclusion that the family court did not
abuse its discretion in ruling that Hawai'i was an inconvenient
forum, we need not address the other arguments raised by GP,

> aecause we affixm the family court's decision that Hawai"! was an
Anconventent forum, we need not addtese the parties” dis sme ver whether
the family court had jurisdiction over this case under AIRS § S83A-201,

  

 

+ uRS § 583-208 provides, in pertinent par’

8824-208 Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct.
(a) Exeept as otherwise provided in section S63A~204, 1 3
court of this State nas jurisdiction under this chapter,
Because a person seeking co invoke its jurisdiction has
engaged in'snjustifiabie conduct, the court shall de
exercise ite Jurisdiction unle;

 

 

ine to

 

 

(2) The parents and all persons acting as parents
have acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction

(2) A court of the ecate otherwise having
Jurisdiction under sections 583A-20: co S83A-203
determines that this State ie a sore appropriate
Serum under section S83A-2077 ax

 

 

(2) No cours of any other state would have
Jorisdiction onder the criteria specified in
Sections 583A-201 "to S83A-203.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

which are not relevant to the family court's inconvenient forum
determination.

‘Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the "Order Granting
Respondent [LP's] Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction" entered on March 20, 2015 in the Family Court
the Fifth Circuit is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 31, ‘2016.

 

 

On the briefs: 4.
Rosa Flores oe 7

for Petitioner-Appellant. chief Judge

Stacey Jorofe
for Respondent-Appellee LP.

ashe Judge

Associate mes