Title: Schillaci-Lavergne v. Murashige

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

no, 29831

 

a

 

=

z

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAET

JONEA SCHILLACI-LAVERGNE, Petitioner, 3

20:2 Wa |e noe sug

sunid

THE HONORABLE CALVIN K. MURASHIGE, JUDGE OF THE FAMILY
COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(UCCJER NO. 07-1-0003)

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

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus and prohibition filed by petitioner Jonea Schillaci-
Lavergne and the papers in support, it appears that the question
of judicial disqualification is reviewable on appeal from a final
order ending the custody modification proceeding in UCCJEA No.
7-1-0003. Petitioner can appeal from a final order pursuant to
HRS §§ 571-54 (2006) and 641-1(a) (Supp. 2008). Consequently,
petitioners case is not one in which the question of
disqualification cannot otherwise be reviewed and immediate
review by way of mandamus and/or prohibition is not warranted.
See Peters v, Jamieson, 48 Haw. 247, 257, 397 P.2d 575, 582
(2964) (*[A] writ of prohibition will lie to compel a trial judge
to recuse him[] or [her]self because of bias or prejudice which
appears from the record, where . . . the case is one in which the
question of disqualification cannot otherwise be reviewed.”).

It further appears that the matters concerning
expert evaluations, discovery, and proof required for custody

modification are reviewable on appeal from a final order ending

asus
the custody modification proceeding in UCCJEA No. 071-0003.
Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to extracrdinary relief.
See Kena v, Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)
(A weit of mandamus and/or prohibition 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. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal
discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they
Intended to serve as legal renedies in lieu of normal appellate
procedures.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus and prohibition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawas't, June 3, 2009.
Revert OT eateneyrrer
nn
Yom 10665,
Plot © (tects Bert