NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000494

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

K.K., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

R.K., Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 3UJ211000002)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

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

Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant K.K. (father) 

appeals from the Order Upon Hearing of February 22, 2022 

(Dismissal Order) entered by the Family Court of the Third 

Circuit (family court) on May 3, 2022.1 

Father raises nine points of error on appeal. Upon 

careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the 

1 The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-22-0000494

08-MAR-2024

09:44 AM

Dkt. 92 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2

parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments 

advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we address 

father's points of error as follows:2

(1) Father's jurisdictional arguments, raised in 

points of error 4, 5, 8, and 9, lack merit. "A family court's 

decision to decline jurisdiction is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion." NB v. GA, 133 Hawaiʻi 436, 444, 329 P.3d 341, 349 

(App. 2014) (citation omitted). From what we are able to 

discern, father contends that the family court erred in: 

"failing to assert jurisdiction because a significant connection 

existed between [father], the [child], and Hawaiʻi, and no other 

grounds existed for the family court to relinquish jurisdiction 

to the New Hampshire Court"; "failing to consider that an 

emergency jurisdiction matter should have existed rather than 

permitting New Hampshire to establish jurisdiction with 

[Defendant-Appellee R.K.'s (mother)] fraudulent and unfounded 

claims of abuse"; "finding that New Hampshire would be a more 

convenient forum"; and "refusing to allow [father] to testify 

2 At the outset, we note that father's opening brief does not meet 

the requirements of Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b). Among 

other things, it fails to cite appropriately to both the record and legal 

authority. Given father's self-represented status, we will address his 

arguments on appeal to the extent that they can reasonably be discerned. 

Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 126 Hawaiʻi 190, 193, 268 P.3d 443, 

446 (App. 2011).

 

We further note that father's opening brief sets forth a total of

nine points of error, including two that are both numbered as point of error 

(3). We have renumbered father's points of error for clarity.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3

regarding matters relevant to whether New Hampshire was an 

inconvenient forum." 

As the record reflects, mother and child moved from 

Hawaiʻi to New Hampshire in September 2021, and established 

residency in New Hampshire. Father and mother mutually agreed 

to dismiss all of their pending Hawaiʻi family court cases; the 

family court dismissed these cases between February and May 

2022.3 Father subsequently filed a complaint for divorce, in 

June 2022, which was docketed as 3FDV-22-0000573. Mother moved 

to dismiss 3FDV-22-0000573. Mother contended that New Hampshire 

had jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the Uniform Child 

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because, at 

the time father filed his complaint in 3FDV-22-0000573, she and 

child had been residing in New Hampshire for more than six 

months. The family court granted mother's motion to dismiss, 

after taking judicial notice of the New Hampshire, Merrimack 

County family court's Order on Jurisdiction in Case No. 637-

2022-DM-00095, dated November 15, 2022. The New Hampshire 

family court asserted jurisdiction over the matter, based on its 

3 The family court dismissed the following cases that were pending 

before it, based on the parties' mutual agreement:

1. 3UJ211000002, petition for custody filed by father in 

September 2021;

2. 3DA211000521, petition for temporary restraining order (TRO) 

filed by father in September 2021;

3. 3DV211000230, complaint for divorce filed by mother in October 

2021; and

4. 3DA2210000125, second petition for TRO filed by father in 

March 2022.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4

finding that "[the child] has resided continuously in the State 

of New Hampshire for more than one year making New Hampshire the 

only state permitted to make an initial child custody 

determination under the UCCJEA." 

We conclude, on this record, that the family court did 

not err in declining jurisdiction over this matter. 

(2) Father's contentions, raised in points of error 1,

6, and 7, lack merit. "Generally, the family court possesses 

wide discretion in making its decisions and those decisions will 

not be set aside unless there is a manifest abuse of 

discretion." In re Doe, 95 Hawaiʻi 183, 189, 20 P.3d 616, 622 

(2001) (cleaned up). Father contends on appeal that the family 

court erred in: "implementing Federal UCCJEA enforcement 

measures regarding the [child's] parental abduction from the 

State of Hawaii"; "failing to consider that [father] had not 

signed the stipulation [dated] 05/06/2022" and "dismiss[ing] the 

UCCJEA absent (ex parte) the presence of the petitioner"; and 

"failing to take into account a violation by [mother] of the 

'Clean Hands' section of the 1997 [UCCJEA][.]" 

The record reflects that the family court dismissed 

the UCCJEA case after the parties informed the family court, on 

the record, that they had mutually agreed to dismiss the pending 

Hawaiʻi divorce and custody cases and would be taking part in 

mediation. See supra note 3. Father points to no evidence or 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

5

authority to support his contention, in his opening brief, that 

he signed the stipulation to dismiss the cases "under coercion 

or duress[.]" Based on the parties' agreement to dismiss the 

Hawaiʻi family court cases, the family court did not address 

father's UCCJEA claims, nor did it take any "enforcement 

measures" pursuant to the UCCJEA. The family court did not 

abuse its discretion in its actions in this regard.

(3) Father's contentions that the family court abused 

its discretion, as set forth in points of error 2 and 3, lack 

merit. Father contends that the family court abused its 

discretion: "by not allowing any type of evidence or procedure 

to be pursued substantively or materially" with regard to his 

April 2022 Motion for Return of Minor Child to the State of 

Hawaiʻi; and in denying his motion to "remove [opposing 

counsel's] firm from all matters due to a conflict of 

interest[.]" 

With regard to point of error 2, the record reflects 

that the family court had dismissed all of the parties' pending 

cases, pursuant to the parties' mutual agreement, prior to any 

evidentiary hearing being held on father's April 2022 motion. 

Moreover, with regard to point of error 3, the record reflects 

that father had agreed to dismiss the pending family court cases 

prior to filing his Motion to Remove Counsel. Father's 

contentions thus lack merit. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

6

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the family 

court's dismissal order. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 8, 2024.

On the briefs:

K.K., self-represented,

Plaintiff-Appellant.

William Dean,

for Defendant-Appellee.

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Presiding Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge