NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-23-0000511

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

N.P., Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

A.C., Respondent-Appellant

and

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 5PP171000013)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Respondent-Appellant A.C. (Mother) appeals from the

August 4, 2023 Order Re: [Mother's] May 22, 2023 Motion to Set

Aside Order Dissolving the Order for Protection Filed in FC-DA

No. 16-1-0193 (Order Denying Motion to Set Aside) entered by the

Family Court of the Fifth Circuit (Family Court).1 Mother also

challenges the Family Court's October 27, 2023 Findings of Fact

[(FOFs)] and Conclusions of Law [(COLs)]; Order (FOFs/COLs/

Order).

1

The Honorable Gregory Meyers presided.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-23-0000511

13-JUN-2024

08:52 AM

Dkt. 74 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

In 2016, Mother filed a petition in FC-DA 16-1-0193

(the OFP Matter), which also involved Petitioner-Appellee N.P.

(Father). Mother alleged that Father sexually abused the

parties' child (Child). The Family Court immediately entered a

temporary restraining order (TRO). On February 1, 2017, the

Family Court granted Mother's petition and entered an order for

protection (2017 OFP) to expire in twelve years, on January 31,

2029.2 The 2017 OFP stated that Mother would have temporary

legal and physical custody, and Father would have supervised

visitation. Father appealed. The 2017 OFP was affirmed in 2018.

Meanwhile, Father filed this paternity case, seeking to

voluntarily establish paternity, and orders for custody, support

and visitation. A three-day trial was held in 2018 and 2019. 

Thereafter, the Family Court entered its June 6, 2019 FOFs, COLs,

and Order (Paternity Order).3 Based on a totality of new

evidence, the Family Court found that Father did not sexually

abuse Child, Mother's allegations were false, and certain other

evidence of such abuse was not reliable or credible. The Family

Court concluded, inter alia, that it is in the best interests of

Child (and Father) for a process of therapeutic reunification to

take place, with supervised visitation to Father. Father and

Mother were awarded joint legal custody of Child. Mother did not

appeal the Paternity Order.

On June 20, 2019, in the OFP Matter, Father filed a

motion to dissolve the 2017 OFP. After an August 15, 2019

2

The Honorable Joe P. Moss presided.

3

The Honorable Edmund D. Acoba presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

hearing in the OFP Matter, the Family Court entered an order

dissolving the 2017 OFP on August 19, 2019. Mother did not file

an appeal in the OFP Matter from the August 19, 2019 order.

Nearly four years later, Mother filed the Motion to Set

Aside Order Dissolving the Order for Protection Filed in FC-DA

No. 16-1-0193 (Motion to Set Aside), in this paternity action,

basically on the grounds argued in this appeal.

Mother raises six points of error on appeal, contending

that the Family Court erred in: (1) finding in FOF 7 that until

2017, there was no formal custody order entered for Child; (2)

concluding in COLs 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 that the Family Court judge

entering the Paternity Order in this case had the jurisdiction

and discretion to dissolve the 2017 OFP, which was issued in the

OFP Matter pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-5.5

(2018), not HRS § 586-4(d) (2018); (3) concluding in COL 10 that

the 2017 OFP issued in the OFP Matter was properly dissolved; (4)

concluding in COL 13 that Mother failed to timely file her Motion

to Set Aside Order; (5) concluding in COL 14 that the concept of

a void judgment must be narrowly construed; and (6) entering the

Order Denying Motion to Set Aside.

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 Mother's points of error as follows:

(1) Mother makes no argument in support of her first

point of error. Therefore it is waived. See Hawai#i Rules of

Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7).

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(2) Mother argues that the Family Court did not have

jurisdiction in this paternity action to enter the Paternity

Order to the extent that it dissolved the 2017 OFP issued in the

OFP Matter. It appears that this issue is moot as a matter of

law. As stated in FOF 13 and COL 10 of the FOFs/COLs/Order, and

as argued by Father on appeal, in the OFP Matter, the Family

Court entered an order dissolving the 2017 OFP in the OFP Matter

on August 19, 2019. Mother did not file an appeal from that

order in the OFP Matter. Therefore, we need not further reach

the substance of Mother's arguments on this point of error.

(3) COL 10 states that the 2017 OFP was properly

dissolved in the OFP Matter. Mother challenges this COL and adds 

that because the Family Court had no jurisdiction to set aside

the 2017 OFP in the Paternity Order, it was "improper" for the

Family Court judge in the OFP Matter to hear Father's motion to

dissolve the 2017 OFP. Mother makes no other argument. Clearly,

this argument is directed toward the Family Court's actions in

the OFP matter and has no merit with respect to this appeal in

the paternity action.

(4) Mother contends the Family Court erred in

concluding that the Motion to Set Aside was untimely because a

challenge to a judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction may be

made at any time in a post-judgment motion brought under Hawai#i

Family Court Rules (HFCR) Rule 60(b)(4).

HFCR Rule 60(b) provides that the Family Court may

relieve a party from a judgment for the following reasons: (1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any

other reason. "The motion shall be made within a reasonable

time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year

after the judgment, order, or proceedings was entered or taken." 

Id. The Hawai#i appellate courts have held that this rule

applies to "all motions made" under HFCR Rule 60(b), "except

motions made under HFCR Rule 60(b)(4)." Greene v. Greene, 8 Haw.

App. 559, 568, 815 P.2d 28, 32 (1991) (emphasis added); Wagner v.

World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 126 Hawai#i 190, 195, 268 P.3d

443, 448 (App. 2011) (noting that a judgment may be declared void

under HRCP Rule 60(b)(4) "regardless of how much time has passed

between entry of judgment and filing the motion" (quoting Bank of

Haw. v. Shinn, 120 Hawai#i 1, 11, 200 P.3d 370, 380 (2008))). 

Thus, the Family Court erred in concluding that Mother's

"jurisdictional" challenge was untimely.

We conclude, however, that the error is harmless, as

the Family Court did not deny the Motion to Set Aside based on

untimeliness, but considered and rejected it on the merits. 

(5) Mother makes no argument in support of her fifth

point of error. Therefore, it is waived. See HRAP Rule

28(b)(7).

(6) Mother's final point of error is simply a catchall statement that the Family Court was wrong. 

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For these reasons, the Family Court's August 4, 2023

Order Denying Motion to Set Aside is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 13, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Acting Chief Judge

Samuel P. King, Jr.,

For Respondent-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

Peter Van Name Esser,

for Petitioner-Appellee. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

6