Title: In re Doe Children: John, born 02/07/97; Jane, born 08/16/98; and John, born 02/14/00

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

1h

No. 26112

faa!
vie

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'S,

    
 

00 I

 

2
=
IN the Interest of DOE CHILDRE? e
JOHN, Born on February 7, 1997; 3
‘JANE, Born on August 16, 19987
JOHN, Born on February 14, 2000.

 

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(Fe-S NO. 02-08368)

sus NODE!
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

Respondent-appellant, father (hereinafter Father"),
appeals from the first circuit family court’s August 1, 2003
order, which, inter alia, divested his parental rights and
awarded permanent custody of his children to the Director of
Human Services. On appeal, Father argues that: (1) the family
court conitted reversible error by ignoring the fact that the
Department of Hunan Services (hereinafter “DHS") abused its
discretion and violated his parental rights when it failed to
place his children with his non-Muslim brother; (2) DHS abused
its discretion and violated his parental rights by relocating his
children from their first, “quasi-Muslin” home to a second
Yofficial Muslim foster home": (3) DHS abused its discretion and
violated his parental rights by designating @ non-therapeutic
Muslim home 2s the post-trial, custodial placenent for his
children; and (4) the family court violated his equal protection
and due process rights by, sue sponte, permitting his deceased
wife's Muslim relatives to intervene and by appointing them

counsel, while denying the same rights to Father's non-Muslim

Oss
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
relatives.
upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold as follows:
(1) Father‘s parental rights in the care, custody, and control of
his children -- prior to termination =~ were subject to the

state's determination of the children’s best interests, and the

 

record indicates that the family court did not exhibit 2 manif
abuse of discretion by deferring to DHS’ placement discretion;*

(2) Father waived his argument thet DHS abused its discretion by
transferring the children to the second “official Muslim foster

home” inasmuch as Father does not indicate, nor does the record
reflect, that Father raised the argument before the family

court;? (3) Father does not challenge the divestiture of his

 

 

+ see Walker v. Johnson, 891 F. Supp. 1040, 1048-1049 (0.
1995) (stating thet suhen_a child Le placed in foster care, a parent's Fight
fo control her child's religious training 42 no longer absolute...
Fundanental {8 the notion thet the best interests of the child are
Parancunt, and that while parental rights certainly do not cease to exist upon
‘bn acjudication of dependency, the parent retains only limites rights to
contral the religious upbringing of the child and certainly does not retain an
absolute right to dictate, at whim, that the child be placed in a
here he or she will receive instruction ine particular religion”) (ellips
Sddea) ; Eruker v. New York, 337 F. Supp. 24 53, 550-551 (8.0. N.Y. 2004)
(citing Halser with approval); Havai't Revised Statutes $§ 587-24(a) (1993)
and $87-2 (1893) (vesting discretion as to tenporary placenent with DAS); In
Eedans Doe, Sor on June 20, 1585, 95 Hawai'i 183, 189-190, 20 P.3d 616, 622-
623 (2001) (eenerally, the “Zanily court possesses wide discretion in making
its decisions and those decisions will not be set aside unless there isa
manifest abuse of discretion.’") (citations omitted)

   

 

  

 

 

2 oy gp fit AA ™
Lids, 100 Hawai'i 97, 107, 58 P.34 G08, G18 (2002) ("Legal issues not raised
in the trial court sre ordinarily deemed waived on appeal”); Molinar
Schuelzer, "95 Hawai'i 351, 338, 22 F.3d 978, 986 (2001) (*We decline to
Sddress the nerics of these claine because ‘sever not properly presented to
the cizcult court may be deened waived on appeal.*)7 Kawaii Roles of
Appellate Procedure [hereinafter “HRAP"] Rule 26(b) (4) (2003) (requiring that

 

 

ych point of error “shall state . . . where in the record the alleged error
Nas objected to oF the menner in uhich the slleged error was brought to the
(Continued...)
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
parental rights on appeal, and therefore (a) he had no parental
rights when DHS made its post-trial, custodial placement, and
(b) he has waived his challenge of DHS’ post-trial custodial
(4) the family court did

 

placement as an abuse of discretion;
not violate Father's equal protection rights by appointing
counsel for, and granting intervention to, the children’s
maternal uncle, while denying the same rights to the children’s
paternal aunt and uncle, inasmuch as Father has failed to
demonstrate that the parties were similarly situated and that the
family court was unjustifiably motivated by religious
considerations;* and (5) the family court did not violate
Father’s due process rights by appointing counsel for, and
granting intervention to, the children’s maternal uncle, while
denying the same rights to the children’s paternal aunt and

uncle, inasmuch as the record indicates that such action did not

21. .continuea)
attention of the lower court or agency.”) (emphasis added) (ellipses added) .

+ Soe HRAP Rule 28(b) (7) (2003) ("Pointe not argued may be dened
waived.”)

+ See Motel v. Mivahixe, 95 Mawas"s 381, 388, 23 P.34 716, 723-724
(2001) ("11g ie well gettled that the crucial inquiry with regard to standing
Le whether the plaintif® has alleged such a personal stake in the outcone of
the controversy as to warrant his or her invocation of the court’s
jurisdiction and to Justify exercise of the court's renedial powers on his or
hher behalf."*} (citation omitted) «

 

+ see State vs Villeza, 3 Hawai'i 258, 267-268, 942 P.2d $22, 531~
532 (1997) ("fo substantiate s claim of discriminatory enforcenent of the lax,

 

the party raising the claim must satisfy a two-part test. First, the party
snust' cenonstrate that the lew is saninistered differently against others
Similarly situated. Second, the party must establish that its selection wi
“deliberately based upen an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or
other arbitrary classification.’") (citation omitted)

3

         
'** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

render the proceedings fundamentally unfair.

 

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the
appeal is taken is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 31, 2006.
on the briefs:

carl Debo Gym
for. respondent “appellant

Father

Susan Barr Brandon and
Mary Anne Magnier, Deputy
Attorneys General, for anes Oech Ors
petitioner-appelice

 

+ ite. " U.S. 745, 754 (1982)
“iwinen the state movi
slisi'bonds, it must provide the parents with funcamente
i") (brackees. eddes)

in the