NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-23-0000073

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN THE INTEREST OF P.L.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(FC-S NO. 22-00150)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, and Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

Appellant Father (Father) appeals from the Orders

Concerning Child Protective Act (Orders), entered on February 9,

2023, in the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court).1/ 

The Family Court ordered, among other things, continued foster

custody of Father's child, P.L. (Child).

 Child was born in August 2021. On October 5, 2022,

Father was arrested for attempted murder for allegedly stabbing

Child's mother (Mother) while she held Child in her arms. A

police officer took protective custody of Child pursuant to

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 587A-8 (2018), and custody was

transferred to Petitioner-Appellee Department of Human Services

(DHS). DHS assumed temporary foster custody pursuant to HRS §§

587A-8 and 587A-9 (2018) and confirmed the threat of abuse and

neglect by Mother and Father. 

On October 10, 2022, DHS filed a Petition for Temporary

Foster Custody of Child (Petition), alleging that Child's

physical or psychological health or welfare was subject to

imminent harm or threatened imminent harm by the acts or

omissions of Child's family, including: (1) Father's arrest for

1/ The Honorable Brian A. Costa presided. 

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-23-0000073

05-JAN-2024

07:53 AM

Dkt. 50 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

allegedly stabbing Mother while she held Child; (2) Child being

left with no legal caregiver or custodian willing and able to

provide her with a safe family home; and (3) Mother and Father's

history of drug use and Father's history of domestic violence. 

On October 12, 2022, at the initial court hearing on the

Petition, Father was provided court-appointed legal counsel, and

the Family Court confirmed temporary foster custody. 

On January 30, 2023, Father's adjudication trial was

held. All parties and their respective counsel were present. 

The court heard testimony from Raquel Taguchi (Taguchi), the

assigned DHS social worker supervisor. All parties stipulated to

Taguchi's expertise as a social worker in the area of child

protective and child welfare services. Taguchi testified, among

other things, that in February 2022, the safety concerns for

Child were domestic violence and substance abuse, and following

the October 5, 2022 incident, the DHS crisis response team and

Mother reported to her that Father had stabbed Mother while

holding Child. Taguchi further testified that Father was unable

to provide Child with a safe and stable environment as he

remained incarcerated and had a substance abuse history. The

Family Court found Taguchi's testimony to be credible. 

The Family Court entered the Orders on February 9,

2023, and related Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

(FOFs/COLs) on March 15, 2023. The court found by a

preponderance of the evidence that 

based upon the credible testimony and the report(s)

submitted pursuant to HRS §§ 587A-7 (2018) and 587A-l8

(2018) and the record herein, . . . there is an adequate

basis to sustain the Petition in that the Child is a child

whose physical or psychological health or welfare has been

harmed or is subject to threatened harm by the acts or

omissions of the Child's family. 

The court also concluded that "Father is currently not willing

and able to provide the Child with a safe family home, even with

the assistance of a service plan and, as such, foster custody of

the Child is appropriate." As relevant here, the court took

jurisdiction over Father, adjudicated the Petition, and continued

foster custody of Child. 

On appeal, Father appears to contend that the Family

Court erred in concluding that Father caused harm or threatened

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

harm to Child, because: (1) Taguchi's testimony about the

stabbing incident was inadmissible hearsay; and (2) "the record

contains no admissible evidence that [Father] harmed or

threatened to harm his child by an act or omission." Relatedly,

Father appears to challenge FOFs 22, 29, 30, 34, 37, and 38, and

COL 8.2/

2/ The challenged FOFs and COL state:

FINDINGS OF FACT

. . . . 

22. On October 5, 2022, the Child was left with no

legal caretaker and the Child not only witnessed domestic

violence between Mother and Father, but was also in a highly

dangerous situation in which Father stabbed Mother while she

was holding the Child in her arms. 

 

. . . . 

29. On October 5, 2022, the DHS received another

report of physical neglect, threat of abuse and threat of

neglect, that Father had stabbed Mother during an argument

while Mother was holding the Child in her arms. 

a. Father was arrested for attempted murder by the

Honolulu Police Department and Mother was taken to the

hospital with stab wounds.

b. A police officer took protective custody of the

Child, who was 22-months old at the time. Custody was

transferred to the DHS and the DHS assumed temporary foster

custody.

30. Due to the stab wounds inflicted by Father,

Mother was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit at The

Queen's Medical Center and she was eventually released just

prior to November 2022. 

. . . . 

34. Based upon the second report to DHS, Father not

only engaged in domestic violence with the Child present,

but Father also placed the Child is [sic] a highly dangerous

situation when he stabbed Mother while she was holding the

Child.

. . . . 

37. Father has a history of substance abuse which

poses a high risk of harm to the Child. 

Assessments

38. The Child's physical or psychological health or

welfare has been harmed and is subject to threatened harm by

the acts or omissions of the Child's family. 

. . . . 

(continued...)

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

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, we

resolve Father's contentions as follows:

(1) Father contends that "[DHS] did not provide

admissible evidence of harm or threatened harm by the parents

because the basis of [Taguchi's] opinion that there was harm or

threatened harm is hearsay evidence that is not acceptable to

prove factually that [Father] stabbed [M]other while she was

hold[ing] the baby on October 5, 2022." 

At trial, Father stipulated to Taguchi's expertise in

the area of child protective and child welfare services. Father

did not object to or move to strike Taguchi's testimony

concerning the stabbing incident as inadmissible hearsay at any

time before the close of evidence.3/ Father merely stated in

closing argument that "there is no admissible evidence presented

today to establish that [F]ather stabbed [M]other." This was

insufficient to preserve Father's current hearsay argument. 

Under HRE Rule 103(a)(1), an "[e]rror may not be predicated upon

a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial

right of the party is affected, and . . . [i]n case the ruling is

2/ (...continued)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

. . . . 

8. The Child's physical or psychological health or

welfare has been harmed and is subject to threatened harm by

the acts or omissions of the Child's family.

3/ Father also did not raise a timely hearsay objection to the

October 7, 2022 Safe Family Home Report (10/7/22 SFHR), which was admitted

into evidence as Exhibit 1. The 10/7/22 SFHR stated, in relevant part:

On 10/05/22, [Father] was arrested for attempted murder

. . . as it was reported, [Father] stabbed [Mother]. 

[Mother] was holding [Child] at the time of the

incident. . . .

It was reported, [Mother] and [Father] got into an argument

a few days prior to the stabbing and [Father] kicked

[Mother] out of the home. [Mother] came to the home on

10/05/22 to pick up [Child]. At that time, [Mother] and

[Father] got into an argument and [Father] stabbed [Mother].

[Mother] was holding [Child] in her arms when [Father]

stabbed [Mother].

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike

appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if

the specific ground was not apparent from the context[.]" 

(Emphasis added; format altered.) The purpose of requiring a

specific objection to the introduction of inadmissible testimony

is to inform the trial court of the error. See State v. Long, 98

Hawai#i 348, 353, 48 P.3d 595, 600 (2002). Because Father failed

to object to or move to strike the challenged testimony, Father's

hearsay argument is deemed waived. See State v. Engelby, 147

Hawai#i 222, 232-33, 465 P.3d 669, 679-80 (2020); State v.

Kawakami, No. CAAP-19-0000874, 2021 WL 2268834, at *2 (Haw. App.

June 3, 2021) (SDO) (noting that the appellant failed to timely

object to or move to strike testimony under HRE Rule 103(a)(1)

when he addressed the issue only during closing argument).

Father makes no other discernible argument as to why

FOFs 22, 29, 30, and 34 are clearly erroneous.4/ His challenge to

these FOFs is therefore without merit.

(2) Father asserts more generally that "the record

contains no admissible evidence that [Father] harmed or

threatened to harm his child by an act or omission." This

contention appears to challenge FOF 38 and COL 8, and is also

without merit.

In addition to the Family Court's FOFs regarding the

stabbing incident, the court made other findings that support FOF

38 and COL 8, which Father does not contest on appeal. These

FOFs include the following: 

FINDINGS OF FACT

. . . . 

25. The Child is vulnerable due to her young age and

being completely dependent on adult caretakers to meet her

needs. 

. . . .

32. The Child had no legal caretaker when protective

custody was taken by the police officer as Mother was

admitted to the hospital and Father was taken into custody

by the police.

4/ For example, Father does not cite any evidence in the record that

contradicts or undermines any of the challenged FOFs, and we have found none.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

. . . . 

35. Father's extreme violent behavior poses a high

risk of harm to the Child and demonstrates his inability to

appropriately parent and to prioritize the Child's needs

over his own. 

36. Due to Father's incarceration, Father is unable

to provide supervision, care, protection, nor a home/shelter

for the Child. 

. . . . 

40. It is contrary to the immediate welfare of the

Child to remain in the family home.

41. Father is currently not willing and able to

provide the Child with a safe family home, even with the

assistance of a service plan.

These uncontested FOFS are binding on this court and

further support the Family Court's mixed conclusions of fact and

law in FOF 38 and COL 8. See In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i 522, 538, 57

P.3d 447, 463 (2002) ("Unchallenged findings are binding on

appeal." (quoting Poe v. Haw. Labor Rels. Bd., 97 Hawai#i 528,

536, 40 P.3d 930, 938 (2002))). Accordingly, we conclude that

FOF 38 and COL 8 are supported by substantial evidence in the

record, and we are not left with a definite and firm conviction

that a mistake has been made.5/ See In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i 183,

190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001). 

For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the Orders

Concerning Child Protective Act, entered on February 9, 2023, in

the Family Court of the First Circuit. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 5, 2024.

On the briefs:

Herbert Y. Hamada

for Father-Appellant.

Kellie M. Kersten and

Julio C. Herrera,

Deputy Attorneys General,

for Petitioner-Appellee.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Presiding Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

5/ Father presents no discernible argument as to why FOF 37 is

clearly erroneous. In any event, FOF 37 is supported by substantial evidence

in the record, including the 10/7/22 SFHR, and we are not left with a definite

and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

6