NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-21-0000029

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

WH, Petitioner-Appellee, v.

AH, Respondent-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(FC-P NO. 20-1-0106)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the November 2, 2021 Motion for

Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Appeal for

Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction Entered October 28, 2021 (Motion

for Reconsideration), by Respondent-Appellant AH (Mother), the

papers in support, and the record, it appears that on

September 15, 2021, Petitioner-Appellee WH (Father) filed a

motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction (Motion to

Dismiss).

On September 21, 2021, the court granted Mother's

September 16, 2021 motion for an extension of time to file an

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and extended the deadline to

October 4, 2021. On October 3, 2021, Mother filed her

opposition.

On October 28, 2021, the court granted the Motion to

Dismiss (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss) on the ground that the

family court had not entered a final, appealable judgment, order,

or decree, and the appealed January 5, 2021 Order Granting

[Father's] Amended Petition for Custody, Visitation, Support

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-21-0000029

08-NOV-2021

08:36 AM

Dkt. 115 OGDMR
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Orders After Voluntary Establishment of Paternity (Order Granting

Amended Petition) was not independently appealable. The court

explained that it had not considered Mother's opposition because

it was untimely, under Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure

(HRAP) Rule 27(a).

In the Motion for Reconsideration, Mother maintains

that the court erred by holding that her opposition to Dismiss

was untimely. She also argues that the court should not have

granted the Motion to Dismiss, raising arguments that are

substantially similar to those in her opposition to the Motion to

Dismiss.

In the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, the court

failed to take notice of its September 21, 2021 order granting

Mother's motion for an extension of time for the opposition,

which Mother timely filed on October 3, 2021. This was error. 

However, having considered Mother's timely filed opposition to

the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Reconsider, Mother has

failed to present any point of law or fact that the court

overlooked or misapprehended with regard to its determination

that the Order Granting Amended Petition is not final and

appealable and does not fall within an exception to the finaljudgment requirement. See HRAP Rule 40(a).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for

Reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. Mother's request that the court reconsider its

determination in the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss that

Mother's opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was untimely, is

granted.

2. All other requested relief is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 8, 2021.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Presiding Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

2