*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

---o0o---

L.R.O., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

N.D.O., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-19-0000446

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-19-0000446; FC-D NO. 16-1-1111)

NOVEMBER 5, 2020

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, AND WILSON, JJ., 

AND CIRCUIT JUDGE CHANG, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCY

OPINION OF THE COURT BY RECKTENWALD, C.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Our state’s version of the Uniform Premarital 

Agreement Act (UPAA) provides that a premarital agreement (PMA) 

is enforceable unless one of the parties proves they did not 

execute it voluntarily. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 572D6(1) (2018). Petitioner N.D.O. (Wife) argued throughout the 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-19-0000446

05-NOV-2020

07:46 AM

Dkt. 7 OPA
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

2

parties’ divorce proceeding that she involuntarily executed a 

PMA prior to her marriage to L.R.O. (Husband). We conclude that 

the family court did not err in rejecting that argument and by 

enforcing the PMA. However, to provide further guidance to the 

family courts, we adopt the California Supreme Court’s test for 

voluntariness in PMAs under the UPAA. We further hold that 

Wife’s other asserted points of error are meritless, and we 

affirm the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) 

and the Family Court of the First Circuit (family court). 

II. BACKGROUND

This appeal arises from a Divorce Decree between 

parties Wife and Husband. In Wife’s application for writ of 

certiorari, she argues that the family court erred by: 

(1) awarding full physical custody of the parties’ minor child 

to Husband based on the custody evaluator’s allegedly biased 

opinion; (2) enforcing a PMA between the parties that Wife 

alleged was unconscionable and entered into involuntarily; and 

(3) failing to find that Husband abused the temporary 

restraining order (TRO) process to gain advantage in the custody 

dispute.

A. Family Court Proceedings

The facts of this case are complex, and Wife and 

Husband presented two drastically different versions of events. 

The following background facts are undisputed.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

3

In 2013, Wife’s aunt, J.D., who lived in Hawai‘i, 

approached Husband, who used to live in J.D.’s building, because 

she wanted to introduce Husband to her niece (Wife) who lived in 

Vietnam. After Husband and Wife electronically communicated for 

several months, J.D. and Husband traveled to Vietnam in December 

2013; J.D. paid for Husband’s flight. Husband met Wife in 

person for the first time on this trip, at which point Husband 

was 45 years old and Wife was 22 years old. Four months later, 

Husband returned to Vietnam and proposed to Wife, who accepted. 

Wife came to the United States in June 2014 on a K-1 fiancée 

visa, allowing her 90 days to marry Husband. 

On August 13, 2014, the parties entered into the PMA,1

which contained terms releasing the parties from “any alimony or 

support obligations.” The PMA also provided that each spouse’s 

property upon entry into the marriage would be treated as 

separate. Further, the PMA stated, “It is the intention of the 

husband in the event that he sells his current residence . . . 

that any equity shall be used to finance another shared property 

with the wife and said equity will be considered shared and 

 1 The six-page PMA was entered into evidence along with “Schedule A1”

which listed Husband’s assets as follows:

1. Federal [Thrift] Savings Plan (government retirement) current 

value is $150k and all future payouts

2. Federal Annuity (government retirement)

3. Primary Residence, [address omitted]
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

4

joint property.” Husband and Wife were married the same day 

they signed the PMA by an officiant Husband hired using 

Craigslist.

Husband and Wife’s only child together was born in 

Honolulu in May 2015. Both spouses acknowledged that there was 

discord in the home before and after the child’s birth, and the 

police came to the couple’s home several times. Each spouse 

alleged physical abuse at the hands of the other. Wife also 

alleged that Husband abused her emotionally and financially. 

During the marriage, Wife and the minor child spent 

approximately six months in Texas over the course of three 

separate trips, residing with Wife’s aunt, D.D. Husband filed 

for divorce on August 25, 2016, while Wife was in Texas. On 

September 22, 2016, Husband petitioned for a TRO on behalf of 

himself, their child, and M.F.O., Husband’s teenage son from a 

prior marriage; the TRO was granted.2 Wife returned to Hawai‘i 

 2 Husband’s petition alleges the following instances of abuse, rephrased 

for clarity:

(1) On May 19, 2016, Wife bit Husband.

(2) In July 2016, Wife was “acting violent” toward Husband while he was 

confined to bed recovering from a stroke at the Rehabilitation Hospital of 

the Pacific; Wife was banned from the hospital.

(3) In late July 2016, Husband was “forced to flee” his house because 

of Wife’s actions.

(4) On September 14, 2016, Wife sent Husband an email wishing him “ill 

will.”
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

5

from Texas on September 29, 2016, and was served with the TRO at 

the airport, where Husband took custody of the child. On 

November 2, 2016, Husband stipulated to visitation between Wife 

and the minor child, removing the child from the TRO. 

The family court3 appointed Dr. Reneau Kennedy as a 

custody evaluator tasked with investigating the family’s 

situation and making a custody recommendation. Dr. Kennedy 

submitted a 112-page report.

1. Trial Testimony

a. Dr. Reneau Kennedy

Dr. Kennedy is a licensed psychologist in Hawai‘i. Dr. 

Kennedy’s custody evaluation report was entered into evidence. 

She concluded that Husband “has a better sense of what the child 

needs and is focused on the child’s best interest.” Further, 

Dr. Kennedy stated, “[T]here is a question in my mind . . . 

whether mother does have capacities that really focus on the 

best interest from a legal perspective[.]” Dr. Kennedy stated 

that she relied on interviews with the parents, the parents’ 

contacts, collateral data from subjects, and documents provided 

to her. Her ultimate recommendation was an 80/20 custody split 

in Husband’s favor. 

 3 The Honorable Paul T. Murakami and the Honorable Kevin T. Morikone 

presided over the proceedings in family court. Judge Morikone presided over 

the trial.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

6

Dr. Kennedy testified that her report included 

information from neighbors and others indicating that Wife had, 

at times, left the minor child in the house alone for up to two 

hours at a time while she allegedly met with other men. Dr. 

Kennedy opined that, possibly as a result of being left alone, 

the child was “not on course” developmentally. Placement in a 

special program brought the child up to speed, but Dr. Kennedy 

indicated Wife was resistant to the program. 

Dr. Kennedy also testified that, according to the 

child’s preschool teacher, the child’s demeanor differed based 

on which parent dropped him off: with Wife, the child was 

“clingy,” “preverbal,” and “often in diapers”; with Husband, the 

child “act[ed] age appropriate[ly].” Additionally, Wife 

sometimes kept the child home from school on the days she had 

custody, which Dr. Kennedy viewed as a failure to prioritize the 

child’s education. 

Regarding Wife’s immigration status, Dr. Kennedy 

stated that Wife’s “green card is pending based on her [Violence 

Against Women Act] claim.” Dr. Kennedy’s report states that in 

June 2018, Wife received a notice from United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (USCIS) that she was granted “deferred” 

action, giving her case “lower priority for removal” until 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

7

September 14, 2019.4 

Dr. Kennedy testified that she visited the residence 

of Wife and her boyfriend, S.A., to observe them with the child. 

Dr. Kennedy also separately interviewed S.A. in her home office. 

On cross-examination, Dr. Kennedy testified that, 

although she interviewed J.D. on July 10, 2018, the notes from 

that interview were mistakenly omitted from her report. Dr. 

Kennedy indicated that J.D. acknowledged that Wife had several 

extramarital affairs. In addition, Dr. Kennedy stated that J.D. 

said negative things about Husband. 

The following exchange occurred between Wife’s counsel 

and Dr. Kennedy:

Q So, Dr. Kennedy, when you talked to mom about her 

concerns about father, what was one of the biggest concerns 

she said?

A I’ll have to look.

Q You don’t know off the top of your head what mother’s 

biggest concern about father is?

A No.

Q Why not?

A Because there are multiple concerns --

Q Okay. Give me the top two –-

A And they are documented in my report.

Q Top 3?

A Well –-

Q You don’t know any of them, do you?

 4 The record indicates that Wife received her green card on February 8, 

2019. 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

8

A -- if I can refresh my memory?

. . . .

Q It’s very clear that you said “The following concerns 

about custody and parenting issues,” the very first one you 

listed is that “He’s an alcoholic with a temper”; isn’t 

that right?

A That’s what the report says.

. . . .

Q Okay. Now in your interview with father –- all 

right. Now I’m gonna give you time on this one –- you show 

me one point, one point where you confronted him or asked 

him about his consumption of alcohol. And I’ll wait ‘cause 

I am going to assert you never brought up the alcoholism 

with father ‘cause it’s not –

. . . .

A I haven’t written that in my report -–

Q Thank you.

. . . .

A I had a discussion with father about his drinking.

Q Okay. How come that’s not in your report when you 

talk about what you talked about with father then?

A Simply because of all of the other information, all 

the other collaterals told me about the absence of father’s 

alcohol abuse --

Q But --

A -- and his denial that he is an alcoholic.

Q Did he deny it in your report? Show us where.

A I have not put that in my report.

Q So why are you saying he has denied he’s an alcoholic 

when it’s not in this report?

A I don’t put every word of my interviews with people 

in my reports.

Q Right. But this is a concern that mother had that’s 

one -- the first one listed. Don’t you think that’s worth 

addressing later on?
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

9

A And I did with multiple people --

Q Right.

A -- who said that father is not an alcoholic.

. . . .

Q Isn’t it true, ma’am, that she specifically told you 

he would drink when he got home and he wouldn’t stop ‘til 

he passed out at night and this happened almost every 

night? Isn’t that what she told you?

A Never.

Q She never told you that?

A That is not her -- her information that she provided 

to me.

Dr. Kennedy went on to testify on cross-examination 

that she did not speak with any of Wife’s other aunts because 

Wife did not list any others for Dr. Kennedy to interview. 

Wife’s counsel also cross-examined Dr. Kennedy with 

respect to an email that Husband sent to Wife on September 28, 

2018 – after the court had granted him the TRO, but before Wife 

came back to Hawai‘i from Texas – promising to help Wife 

transition to living on her own.5 Dr. Kennedy testified that she 

 5 Wife argues that this email was designed to “lure” her into returning

to Hawai‘i so that Husband could serve her with the TRO and remove the child 

from her care. It stated that Husband will let Wife have the master bedroom 

in his house for a few days, after which she can move into a small bedroom in 

the house while she looks for her own place. It appears from the email that 

Wife told Husband that she would like to stay with him for “two month[s] max” 

so she has time to establish other living arrangements. The email also 

stated that Wife could use Husband’s credit card during the transition and 

that Husband hired a nanny who would start the next week if Wife had job 

interviews. 

Husband testified on cross-examination that he sent the email to Wife 

because he was not yet sure if he wanted to serve her with the TRO, and he 

thought the TRO would be effective only after service. 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

10

believed Husband meant to follow through on the promises in his 

email, notwithstanding that the TRO he had already obtained 

would preclude him from doing so. 

With respect to the status quo of the custody 

arrangements, on cross-examination, Dr. Kennedy and Husband’s

counsel had the following exchange:

Q What does mother describe the current time-share 

schedule as?

A I don’t know. I have not been in contact with these 

folks for months.

Q What was it when you were in contact with them, 

ma’am?

A Um, she was getting the child on the weekends through 

Mondays.

Q You sure? ‘Cause let me read you what you wrote.

A Okay. Well, that’s fine.

Q Thank you. “Mother describes the current timesharing schedule as sharing half custody. Week 1, mother 

has [the child] from Friday to Monday; Week 2, from Friday 

to Tuesday on a rotating schedule. . . . So does that 

refresh your recollection as to what she said the current 

time-sharing was?

. . . .

A I am saying that she did not have half custody.

. . . .

Q Friday to Monday and Friday to Tuesday. Friday, 

Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, that’s five days out of 

the week, isn’t it?

. . . .

A [N]o because he goes to school on Friday and he’s 

supposed to be in school on Mondays and Tuesdays.

. . . .

Q So my point is here you’re a little generous with 

your time with father because you included all the time 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

11

that the child’s in school as time with father, yeah?

A Correct.

Q Okay. And the only time you included with mother is 

when he’s not in school?

A Correct.

b. Husband

When directly examined about the PMA, Husband

contended that he first showed a “general format[]” PMA to Wife

and told her that “all men in the west” get PMAs. Husband

testified that Wife can “read English well” and understood the 

document. 

Husband claimed that he presented Wife with the PMA

“at least two weeks before” she signed it. When asked whether 

Wife appeared to have reservations about the PMA, Husband

contended that he modified the agreement to account for Wife’s 

concerns about ownership of the equity in Husband’s home.

Additionally, Husband contended that he encouraged Wife to have 

the document reviewed by a lawyer and gave her $300 and a credit 

card to do so. 

Husband testified that both he and Wife signed the PMA

on August 13, 2014 at approximately 9:00 a.m. in front of a 

notary. Husband testified that Wife appeared comfortable when 

she signed the document and that he had done nothing prior to 

give her the belief that she must sign the PMA. The parties 

were legally married that same day around 4:30 p.m. According 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

12

to Husband, Wife requested the August 13 wedding date because 

she wanted to “get it over with” and the faster they got 

married, the faster they could apply for her green card and work 

permit. The parties had originally planned to get married in 

Las Vegas in September; Husband testified that he had pre-paid a 

vacation package. 

Husband denied having ever had a drinking problem. 

With respect to Husband’s claims of Wife’s abuse, Husband 

recounted a day in May 2016 – which was also reflected in 

Husband’s TRO petition – when Wife found emails from a dating 

site in Husband’s email inbox and allegedly attacked Husband 

while he was in the shower with their child. 

Husband recounted a series of verbal altercations with

Wife, allegedly culminating in Wife hitting him in the face and 

on the side of the head five to ten times on the morning of 

July 12, 2016. Husband asserted that he then pushed Wife off of 

him, but that about half an hour later, he began to vomit and 

dry heave. Husband recounted that he called 911 a few hours 

later and was picked up by an ambulance and taken to Pali Momi 

hospital, where he stayed for four to five days. Husband

contends that Dr. Sydney Lee conducted an MRI and told him that 

he had suffered a stroke caused by trauma to his vestibular 

artery in his neck, the same area where Wife struck him on 

July 12. Husband testified that he obtained a TRO against Wife
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

13

on November 2, 2016.6

On cross examination, Husband testified that he did 

not offer Wife a waiver of independent professional advice that 

would confirm that she knew she could have her own attorney 

review the PMA. Husband sat with Wife in their home while she 

read the PMA to herself. Additionally, Husband conceded that he 

told Wife he would not marry her unless she signed the PMA. 

Husband also admitted that the notary had recorded the PMA 

signing time as 2:45-2:50 p.m., which was closer to the wedding 

ceremony than the 9:00 a.m. time stated. 

c. J.D.

J.D. spoke about her interview with Dr. Kennedy, 

stating that she felt Dr. Kennedy was looking for bad things 

about Wife and good things about Husband. J.D. testified that 

she told Dr. Kennedy that Husband drinks too much and that Wife 

is a capable parent. J.D. stated that Dr. Kennedy did not 

specifically ask J.D. to speak poorly about Wife, but did ask 

J.D. if she knew about Wife’s affairs with other men. 

d. S.A.

S.A. testified that he met Wife through a mutual 

friend on O‘ahu in October 2016. They began dating in February 

 6 The TRO petition does not include Husband’s allegation that Wife hit 

him and caused him to have a stroke. In addition, Dr. Kennedy’s report 

stated that the alleged hitting occurred on July 11, 2016, reflecting a 

discrepancy between the report and Husband’s testimony at trial.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

14

2017 and moved in together in March 2017. S.A. testified that 

Wife’s English “wasn’t that good” when he met her and that it 

had “gotten a lot better” since. 

S.A. testified that Wife is not abusive; after living 

together for almost two years, he had never seen her get angry 

or yell. Further, S.A. stated that Wife’s child was her first 

priority. 

S.A. stated that Dr. Kennedy interviewed him at her 

home office for approximately an hour and a half but felt that 

she “wasn’t listening” to him. He told Dr. Kennedy that Wife is 

an “amazing” mother. Dr. Kennedy allegedly told S.A. that Wife 

was an illegal alien who “has been asked multiple times to leave 

the country.” When S.A. reviewed Dr. Kennedy’s final report, he 

noticed that it did not contain notes from his interview. S.A. 

testified that Dr. Kennedy’s statement in her report that this 

was his first experience with young children was false. 

e. Wife7

Wife testified that when she first met Husband, J.D. 

translated for them. Wife stated that she started learning 

English in high school but had no English-speaking people to 

practice with. When communicating with Husband in writing 

before coming to the United States, Wife used Google Translate. 

 7 Wife testified almost entirely in English, with an interpreter standing 

by who stepped in to assist when Wife asked for help. 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

15

Wife asserted that her child’s perceived developmental 

delays were the result of her calling him by his middle name and 

speaking to him in Vietnamese; thus, a test in English that 

calls him by his first name would elicit no response. 

Wife stated that Husband arranged for the couple to 

marry on August 13, 2014. Husband first gave Wife the PMA 

around 3:00 that day, while they were at the mall. Wife further 

testified as follows:

Q You were in a mall with [Husband] and he gave you –

what happened? Describe it to the judge.

A So, uh, we walk around the mall and the guy called. 

He showed up. And [Husband] asked me to, um, sign on the 

paperwork.

Q Did you read the agreement before you signed it?

A No.

Q Did you read any of the agreement?

A No.

Q Did [Husband] read it for you?

A No.

Q Did [Husband] explain it to you?

A He told me that, uh, this is the prenup that I have 

to sign. I ask him what is the prenup and he told me that 

all rich western men have to do this before marriage.

Q Did he tell you what it would mean if you signed it?

A He told me that is – it’s – it’s mean that you don’t 

touch my property if we divorce. And – and – and I ask –

and I told him that I am not sure about it. And he told me

that – he ask me if I’m planning on divorce him and I told 

him no. And he told me, “Then why you even care? But if 

you don’t sign it now, then I’ll kick you back Vietnam.” 

According to Wife, Husband did not tell her that she 

could have the PMA reviewed by her own attorney. Wife testified 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

16

that she was afraid of being sent back to Vietnam because she 

had no place or belongings to return to, and it would be 

shameful to be sent back. The parties married “15 minutes or 

half an hour” after signing the PMA. Wife stated that Husband 

did not give her a copy of the PMA in Vietnam, and even if he 

had, she would not have understood it. 

Wife stated that she felt Dr. Kennedy’s report was 

“very unfair” because it was “very one-sided and far from the 

truth,” omitted important information, and had incorrect 

information about dates of events. In addition, Wife testified 

that she sent Dr. Kennedy a list of individuals to interview, 

including D.D., but Dr. Kennedy did not contact D.D. 

Wife was served with the TRO when she and the child 

returned to Honolulu from Texas. Police took the child from her 

and gave her an envelope with two hundred dollars and a credit 

card inside. 

Wife stated that she knew what an agreement was 

generally but did not understand that the PMA was an agreement. 

She felt she had no choice but to sign it because she did not 

want to return to Vietnam and needed medical insurance for her 

pregnancy. 

With respect to her alleged pregnancy, Wife stated 

that she informed Husband as soon as she found out, sometime in 

August 2014. Wife also stated that she saw a doctor, Dr. Chang, 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

17

after she miscarried, while Husband was in Guam for work; she 

told Dr. Chang that the miscarriage was due to abuse from 

Husband. However, Wife admitted that her statement was not in 

Dr. Chang’s notes. Wife said that Dr. Chang told her that he 

would only put her report in his notes if she called the police. 

Because Wife did not want to involve the police, she did not ask 

Dr. Chang to include the abuse allegation in his notes. 

Wife denied both hitting Husband in the neck on the 

morning of his stroke and hitting him at the Rehab Hospital. 

She also provided a different account of why she bit Husband on 

the arm in May 2015: Wife stated that Husband was not in the 

shower with their child and that she bit Husband to defend 

herself after he threw her on the ground and punched her on the 

left clavicle. Wife visited a psychologist soon after, who 

noticed the bruise and asked if she called the police. When 

Wife indicated she had not, the psychologist took a photo of the 

bruise. 

Wife also provided an alternate account of the morning 

of Husband’s stroke. Wife said that Husband began drinking at 

5:00 p.m. the day before, despite admitting that his doctor told 

him not to drink. Wife asked him to stop drinking, but he 

continued. According to Wife, Husband brought up Wife’s past 

affairs, and they argued until about midnight, Husband drinking 

the entire time. They went to bed, and Husband told Wife that 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

18

he had sex with 18-year-old twins in Thailand. Wife testified 

that she asked Husband to stop talking about it, but he 

continued, in detail, about his sexual encounters with other 

women. Wife then told him, “If you say it again, I’m gonna slap 

your mouth.” According to Wife, Husband continued, so she 

slapped him on the lips with an open hand. Around 1:00 a.m., 

Wife walked outside for about fifteen minutes and came back in. 

At this point, Wife alleges that Husband raped her. They fell 

asleep until 8:00 a.m., when Husband began to show symptoms of 

the stroke. Wife acknowledged that Husband took his ex-wife to 

the military base around 10:00 p.m. the night before the stroke 

and stated that, although Husband was drunk, military police did 

not stop him. 

Wife confirmed that she regularly kept the child home 

from school on the Mondays she had custody because she believed 

that strengthening their bond was more important. After her 

interview with Dr. Kennedy, in which Dr. Kennedy told her that 

it was better for the child to go to school, Wife began 

following that recommendation. 

2. Family Court’s FOFs and COLs

The family court’s order contained the following 

findings of fact (FOFs), which are at issue in Wife’s 

application for certiorari:
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

19

15. After being introduced, Plaintiff and Defendant 

communicated with each other by e-mail and text message. 

Said communications were in the English language.

16. Defendant learned English as a second language in 

elementary school and through high school. Although a 

second language, Defendant understood English.

. . . .

19. While the parties were in Thailand, the parties 

discussed the possibility of marriage and Plaintiff raised 

the issue of a [PMA] and that Defendant would be required 

to execute a PMA before the parties would marry.

. . . .

28. A few weeks prior to the execution of the PMA, 

Plaintiff provided a copy of the PMA to Defendant and 

Defendant reviewed the same. The parties discussed the 

content of the PMA and the portions that Defendant did not 

like.

29. Plaintiff made changes to the initial draft of 

the PMA to address Defendant’s concerns.

30. There was no credible or reliable evidence that 

Defendant did not voluntarily execute the PMA.

. . . .

32. There was no credible or reliable evidence to 

support the assertion that Defendant did not understand the 

terms of the PMA.

33. There was no credible or reliable evidence that 

the terms of the PMA [were] unconscionable at the time of 

the execution of the PMA.

34. There was no credible or reliable evidence that 

the terms of the PMA [were] unconscionable at the time of 

trial.

. . . .

43. The Court found Dr. Kennedy’s report and 

testimony credible and persuasive. Notwithstanding[,] 

however, approximately six (6) months elapsed between the 

filing of the report and the completion of trial.

. . . .

45. Father took a pro-active approach with respect to 

the child’s education and Mother did not.

. . . .
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

20

48. Although domestic violence between the parties 

were alleged by both sides, Dr. Kennedy[,] through her 

extensive investigation, believed that Father’s accounts 

were more credible and the Court agreed with the same.

. . . .

53. Based upon the credible and reliable evidence 

adduced at trial, the Court found that it is in the best 

interests of the child that the then[-]existing timesharing 

schedule be modified.

. . . .

60. Based upon the credible and reliable evidence, 

orders requiring alimony to be paid to either party were 

precluded by the PMA.

. . . .

The family court further entered the following 

conclusions of law (COLs) at issue in Wife’s application for the 

writ of certiorari:

6. The terms of the PMA did not violate HRS § 572D3.[8]

 8 HRS § 572D-3 (2018) states:

(a) Parties to a premarital agreement may contract 

with respect to:

(1) The rights and obligations of each of the 

parties in any of the property of either or 

both of them whenever and wherever acquired or 

located;

(2) The right to buy, sell, use, transfer, 

exchange, abandon, lease, consume, expend, 

assign, create a security interest in, 

mortgage, encumber, dispose of, or otherwise 

manage and control property;

(3) The disposition of property upon separation, 

marital dissolution, death, or the occurrence 

or nonoccurrence of any other event;

(4) The modification or elimination of spousal 

support;

(continued . . .)
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

21

. . . .

10. Based upon the credible and reliable evidence, 

the Court did not find that Defendant was forced to execute 

the PMA. On the contrary, based upon the credible and 

reliable evidence, the Court found that Defendant 

voluntarily executed the PMA.

. . . .

13. Based upon the reliable and credible evidence, 

the Court found that Husband provided a copy of the PMA to 

Wife a few weeks prior to the execution of the PMA.

. . . .

20. Based upon the credible and reliable evidence, 

the Court found that neither the terms governing property 

division, nor the terms eliminating spousal support were 

unconscionable.

. . . .

33. Based on the credible and reliable evidence 

presented, as well as the relevant factors enumerated in 

HRS 571-46(b), the Court finds that it is in the best 

interest of the child that Father be awarded primary 

physical custody of the child, subject to Mother’s 

visitation rights outlined below.

. . . .

49. The enforcement of the PMA precludes an award of 

alimony to either party.

 (5) The making of a will, trust, or other 

arrangement to carry out the provisions of the 

agreement;

(6) The ownership rights in and disposition of the 

death benefit from a life insurance policy;

(7) The choice of law governing the construction of 

the agreement; and

(8) Any other matter, including their personal 

rights and obligations, not in violation of 

public policy or a statute imposing a criminal 

penalty.

(b) The right of a child to support may not be 

adversely affected by a premarital agreement.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

22

B. ICA Proceedings

1. Wife’s Opening Brief

Wife presented ten points of error, consolidated for 

clarity as follows:

1. The family court erred by awarding sole physical 

custody of the minor child to Husband.

2. The family court erred by enforcing the PMA, 

rejecting Wife’s contention that she was coerced into signing it 

or signed under duress.

3. The family court erred by failing to require 

Husband to pay child support.

4. The family court erred by entering FOFs 15, 16, 

19, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 53, 57, 60, 

61, 62, 63, and 64.9

5. The family court erred by entering COLs 6, 10, 

13, 20, 33, 41, 44, 49, 50, and 51.

6. The family court erred by declining to admit an 

email between the parties in which Husband admitted to consuming 

“too much” alcohol.

We address only arguments Wife made in the ICA that 

relate to her claims on certiorari.

Wife first argued that the best interests of the child 

 9 Concomitantly, Wife contended that the family court erred by declining 

to enter Wife’s proposed FOFs and COLs. 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

23

required either an award of sole custody to Wife or joint 

custody. In support of this argument, she pointed out that Dr. 

Kennedy’s report stated that Wife’s ability to stay in the 

United States was one of the important deciding factors. Since 

Wife has lawful permanent residence, she argued that this factor 

cuts in her favor. Wife also contended that Dr. Kennedy did not 

know Wife’s immigration status, and instead “was sure” that Wife 

was illegally present in the United States and would soon leave. 

This conclusion was allegedly without a basis in fact and was 

prejudicial to Wife. 

According to Wife, Dr. Kennedy reached conclusions 

without knowledge or investigation into the underlying facts. 

Specifically, Wife argued that Dr. Kennedy did not include 

Wife’s concerns about Husband’s alcohol use in the custody 

report. In addition, Wife contended that Dr. Kennedy’s report 

should have addressed the vulnerabilities of female immigrant 

spouses. Dr. Kennedy’s report also did not include the notes 

from her interview with S.A. or with J.D. Dr. Kennedy did not 

interview D.D., who lived in Texas, though Wife had asked Dr. 

Kennedy to do so. 

With respect to the PMA, Wife asserted that Husband 

alone arranged the marriage ceremony, and the PMA was notarized 

an hour before the ceremony. Wife did not read or understand 

the PMA because English was not her native language, nor was she 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

24

informed that she should have her own attorney review the 

agreement. Instead, Husband allegedly told Wife he would send 

her back to Vietnam if she did not sign the PMA. Wife argued 

that the facts showed that she signed the PMA involuntarily; the 

family court thus should not have found that it was enforceable. 

In support of her contention, Wife cited cases from other 

jurisdictions in which courts found PMAs signed under similar 

circumstances unenforceable. 

Wife alleged that when she and the child returned from 

Texas, Husband lied and misused the TRO process to remove the 

minor child from Wife’s care. 

2. Husband’s Answering Brief 

With respect to the PMA, Husband asserted that he gave 

Wife a copy of the agreement two weeks before she signed it, 

along with $300 to pay a lawyer to review it. Wife allegedly 

said that she didn’t need a lawyer’s opinion and asked Husband 

to make one change to the agreement to “contribute his 

premarital equity to any joint properties the parties were to 

purchase,” which Husband did. Husband maintained that Wife was 

fluent in English and communicated with her attorney and with 

Husband in English. 

3. Wife’s Reply Brief

Wife argued that Husband’s AB ignored the mistakes and 

bias of the custody evaluator and failed to respond to Wife’s 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

25

arguments that Husband abused the TRO process. 

4. The ICA’s Memorandum Opinion

The ICA concluded that each challenged FOF relating to 

child custody was supported by substantial evidence in the 

record, and that the circuit court properly considered the 

relevant factors set forth in HRS § 571-46 (2018)10 to determine 

 10 HRS § 571-46 (2018) states in relevant part:

(a) In actions for divorce . . . where there is at 

issue a dispute as to the custody of a minor child, the 

court . . . may make an order for the custody of the minor 

child as may seem necessary or proper. In awarding the 

custody, the court shall be guided by the following 

standards, considerations, and procedures:

(1) Custody should be awarded to either parent or to 

both parents according to the best interests of 

the child, and the court also may consider 

frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact of 

each parent with the child unless the court 

finds that a parent is unable to act in the best 

interest of the child;

. . . .

(4) Whenever good cause appears therefor, the court 

may require an investigation and report 

concerning the care, welfare, and custody of any 

minor child of the parties. When so directed by 

the court, investigators or professional 

personnel attached to or assisting the court, 

hereinafter referred to as child custody 

evaluators, shall make investigations and 

reports that shall be made available to all 

interested parties and counsel before hearing, 

and the reports may be received in evidence[.]

. . . .

(b) In determining what constitutes the best interest 

of the child under this section, the court shall consider, 

but not be limited to, the following:

. . . .

(continued . . .)
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

26

the best interest of the minor child. The ICA quoted FOFs 39-

52,11 concluding that those FOFs supported the family court’s 

 (2) Any history of neglect or emotional abuse of a 

child by a parent;

(3) The overall quality of the parent-child 

relationship;

(4) The history of caregiving or parenting by each 

parent prior and subsequent to a marital or 

other type of separation;

. . . .

(6) The physical health needs of the child;

(7) The emotional needs of the child;

(8) The safety needs of the child;

(9) The educational needs of the child;

(10) The child’s need for relationships with siblings;

. . . .

(12) Each parent’s actions demonstrating that they 

separate the child’s needs from the parent’s 

needs;

. . . .

(15) The areas and levels of conflict present within 

the family[.]

11 These FOFs are as follows:

39. On or about October 16, 2017, the Honorable Dyan 

M. Medeiros ordered that Reneau Kennedy, Ed.D. serve a[s] 

custody evaluator in this case.

40. Dr. Kennedy engaged in a comprehensive 

investigation and provided a 112-page report which was 

filed on July 27, 2018[,] and received into evidence as 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit “6”.

41. Dr. Kennedy also provided testimony and was 

subject to cross-examination during the trial.

(continued . . .)
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

27

decision to award Husband sole physical custody of the minor 

child. 

With respect to the PMA, the ICA again quoted the 

family court’s FOFs and concluded that “[t]he family court’s 

 42. Dr. Kennedy provided her findings and 

recommendations in her report and also testified to the 

same.

43. The Court found Dr. Kennedy’s report and 

testimony credible and persuasive. Notwithstanding 

however, approximately six (6) months elapsed between the 

filing of the report and the completion of trial.

44. Dr. Kennedy identified that the child had 

developmental delays in several areas and that the 

Department of Health Services provided support and services 

to the child which helped to compensate for said delays.

45. Father took a pro-active approach with respect to 

the child’s education and Mother did not.

46. After some time, however, it appears that Mother 

became more supportive of the child’s educational needs.

47. Although initially, Mother frequently took the 

child to school late or failed to take the child to school, 

it appeared to the Court that Mother addressed the issue.

48. Although domestic violence between the parties

were alleged by both sides, Dr. Kennedy through her 

extensive investigation, believed that Father’s accounts 

were [] more credible and the Court agreed with the same.

49. There was no credible evidence that either party 

was a danger to the child or neglected the child.

50. It appeared to the Court that both parties had a 

strong and healthy relationship with the child.

51. Based on the credible and reliable evidence 

adduced at trial, the Court found that it is in the child’s 

best interests that Mother and Father share joint legal 

custody except for educational decisions.

52. Based on the credible and reliable evidence 

adduced at trial, the Court found that it is in the best 

interests of the child that Father be awarded sole physical 

custody of the child subject to the liberal visitation set 

forth in the Decision and Order.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

28

conclusions of law are supported by the family court’s [FOFs] 

and reflect an application of the correct rule of law.” 

C. Supreme Court Proceedings

Wife presented three points of error in her 

application for the writ of certiorari, which we construe as 

follows:

I. The family court erred in finding that the PMA was 

enforceable in spite of evidence that Wife signed it 

involuntarily.

II. The family court erred in relying on the Custody 

Evaluator’s biased report recommending awarding Husband

sole custody of the minor child.

III. The family court erred in failing to find that Husband

abused the TRO process in order to gain an advantage in a 

custody dispute.

Wife’s contentions in her certiorari application 

regarding the PMA’s execution are the same as those in her 

opening brief. As to Dr. Kennedy’s bias, Wife’s application 

cites the following instances of alleged unfairness in the 

report: (1) the opinion that Wife’s immigration status was an 

important factor in determining the best interests of the child 

and the statement that Wife was subject to deportation; (2) the 

absence of notes from the custody evaluator’s interviews with 

S.A. and J.D.; (3) the custody evaluator’s belief that the child 

was only with Wife on the weekends; (4) the custody evaluator’s 

need to refresh her recollection on the stand by reading her 

report in order to answer Wife’s counsel’s questions about 

Wife’s “concerns” about Husband; (5) the absence of analysis of 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

29

Husband’s alleged misuse of the TRO process; (6) the absence of 

questions to Husband about his alcohol use; and (7) the custody 

evaluator’s failure to interview D.D. As to her third point of 

error, Wife repeats her opening brief’s arguments.

Husband did not file a response.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Construction of a Contract

In Balogh v. Balogh, 134 Hawai‘i 29, 332 P.3d 631 

(2014), we stated:

The construction and legal effect to be given a contract is 

a question of law freely reviewable by an appellate court. 

Unconscionability is a question of law this court reviews 

de novo. Whether particular circumstances are sufficient 

to constitute duress is a question of law, although the 

existence of those circumstances is a question of fact.

Id. at 37-38, 332 P.3d at 639-40 (quotation marks, elipsis, 

brackets and citations omitted).

B. Family Court’s FOFs

We have held:

The family court’s FOFs are reviewed on appeal under the 

clearly erroneous standard. A FOF is clearly erroneous 

when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support 

the finding, or (2) despite substantial evidence in support 

of the finding, the appellate court is nonetheless left 

with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

made. Substantial evidence is credible evidence which is 

of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a 

person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion.

In re Doe, 95 Hawai‘i 183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001) 

(quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted).

A mixed question of law and fact is likewise reviewed 

under the clearly erroneous standard. Id.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

30

C. Family Court’s COLs

“[T]he family court’s COLs are reviewed on appeal de 

novo[.]” Id.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. The Family Court Did Not Err in Finding that the PMA was 

Enforceable

A PMA is enforceable unless (1) execution of the 

agreement was involuntary, or (2) the agreement was 

unconscionable when executed, and “before execution of the 

agreement,” the party against whom enforcement is sought:

(A) Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of 

the property or financial obligations of the other party;

(B) Did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing,

any right to disclosure of the property or financial 

obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure 

provided; and

(C) Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an 

adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations 

of the other party.

HRS § 572D-6(a).

Wife’s primary argument is that she did not enter into 

the PMA voluntarily. Nonetheless, we discuss both 

involuntariness and unconscionability below because her brief 

could be construed to raise unconscionability as well.

1. The family court did not clearly err in its factual 

findings that Wife voluntarily entered into the PMA

Given the conflicting testimony on the circumstances 

under which the parties executed the PMA, there was substantial 

evidence in the record to support the family court’s 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

31

determination that Wife did not prove that she involuntarily 

entered into the agreement. In other words, the family court, 

judging the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, found 

Husband credible, and Husband’s testimony supports the trial 

court’s ultimate conclusion on the question of voluntariness. 

Thus, we are not left with a “definite and firm conviction” that 

the family court made a mistake.

2. The family court’s factual findings supported its 

conclusion of law that Wife did not involuntarily 

execute the PMA

This court has not considered voluntariness in the 

context of a PMA. However, the ICA did so in Chen v. 

Hoeflinger, 127 Hawai‘i 346, 357, 279 P.3d 11, 22 (App. 2012), in 

which the ICA stated, “Involuntariness is shown by evidence of 

duress, coercion, undue influence, or any other circumstance 

indicating lack of free will or voluntariness.” (Quotation 

marks omitted.) See Balogh, 134 Hawai‘i at 49, 332 P.3d at 651 

(applying the ICA’s formulation of involuntariness in Chen to

the question of enforceability of a post-marital agreement). 

Given the substantial evidence supporting the family court’s 

factual findings, its conclusion of law that Wife did not prove 

she involuntarily signed the PMA was not erroneous under the 

principles articulated in Chen. Nevertheless, we take the 

opportunity to provide more specific guidance for family courts 

to use in determining whether a PMA was involuntarily entered 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

32

into. We find the factors set forth in In re Bonds, 5 P.3d 815 

(Cal. 2000), compelling, and we adopt those factors under the 

laws of our state.

In Bonds, the California Supreme Court upheld a PMA 

between Husband (baseball player Barry Bonds) and Wife, a 

Swedish citizen whose first language was not English. The 

agreement was signed the day before the wedding, and Wife 

testified that she did not know until she arrived at Husband’s 

lawyer’s office that she was there to execute a PMA. Id. at 

818. The court held that “[i]n determining the voluntariness of 

a premarital agreement, a reviewing court should accept such 

factual determinations of the trial court as are supported by 

substantial evidence.” Id. at 834. Because there was 

substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings that 

(1) Wife was not subject to any threats and did not express 

reluctance to sign the agreement, (2) the close proximity to the 

wedding was not coercive, and (3) the wedding could have been 

postponed, the court found the PMA enforceable. Id. at 835. 

Bonds set forth the following guidance:12

In considering defenses proffered against enforcement of a 

premarital agreement, the court should consider whether the 

 12 Although the Bonds factors were adopted in the context of a PMA in 

which one spouse was in the United States on a 90-day visa, California courts 

have used the factors to determine the voluntariness of PMAs outside of this 

specific immigration context, as well. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Hill & 

Dittmer, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1046 (2011). Likewise, going forward, courts 

should consider these factors in all cases where the voluntariness of a PMA 

is disputed, regardless of whether a party contends that immigration concerns 

contributed to the alleged involuntariness of the agreement.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

33

evidence indicates coercion or lack of knowledge . . . . 

Specifically, the cases cited in the comment to the 

enforcement provision of the Uniform Act direct 

consideration of the impact upon the parties of such 

factors as the coercion that may arise from the proximity 

of execution of the agreement to the wedding, or from 

surprise in the presentation of the agreement; the presence 

or absence of independent counsel or of an opportunity to 

consult independent counsel; inequality of bargaining power 

– in some cases indicated by the relative age and 

sophistication of the parties; whether there was full 

disclosure of assets; and the parties’ understanding of the 

rights being waived under the agreement or at least their 

awareness of the intent of the agreement.

5 P.3d at 824-25.

The Nebraska Supreme Court adopted this language in 

Mamot v. Mamot, 813 N.W.2d 440 (Neb. 2012), as have several 

other state courts. E.g., In re Marriage of Rudder, 217 P.3d 

183, 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2009); Chaplain v. Chaplain, No. 1301-10-

1, 2011 WL 134104, at *4 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). California, 

Nebraska, and Oregon, like Hawai‘i, have adopted the Uniform 

Premarital Agreement Act. See Uniform Law Commission, 

“Premarital Agreement Act” (1983), https://perma.cc/KW87-

R3Z4?type=image. The factors set forth in Bonds illustrate 

practical concerns regarding voluntariness and give trial courts 

ample guidance on this important issue. 

Based on the family court’s FOFs, Wife does not 

satisfy the Bonds test for unenforceability. Although the PMA 

was executed the same day as the parties married, the family 

court found that the marriage took place that day at Wife’s 

request, Husband provided a copy of the PMA to Wife a few weeks 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

34

prior, Husband edited a provision of the PMA in response to 

Wife’s concerns to make it more favorable to her, and Wife 

understood the intent of the PMA. In addition, there was no 

evidence that Husband failed to disclose any of his assets. 

Thus, four out of five of the Bonds factors – surprise in the 

presentation of the agreement, bargaining power, full disclosure 

of assets, and awareness of the intent of the agreement - weigh 

in favor of Husband. As to the fifth Bonds factor, opportunity 

to consult independent counsel, Husband testified that he 

provided Wife with time and money to hire a lawyer, but she 

declined to do so. The family court did not enter a specific 

finding of fact on this issue, but the family court judged 

Husband generally credible. Thus, the family court’s and ICA’s 

decision on the PMA’s voluntariness was correct.

3. The PMA was not unconscionable

An unconscionable PMA is unenforceable. 

Unconscionability encompasses two principles: one-sidedness

and unfair surprise. One-sidedness (i.e., substantive 

unconscionability) means that the agreement leaves a postdivorce economic situation that is unjustly 

disproportionate. Unfair surprise (i.e., procedural 

unconscionability) means that one party did not have full 

and adequate knowledge of the other party’s financial 

condition when the marital agreement was executed.

Balogh, 134 Hawai‘i at 41, 332 P.3d at 643 (quotation marks, 

citations and brackets omitted).

HRS § 572D-6(a)(2) requires that a party prove both 

substantive and procedural unconscionability in order to avoid 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

35

enforcement of a PMA. Here, the PMA was neither substantively 

nor procedurally unconscionable. 

As to substantive unconscionability, it appears that 

the agreement was not “unjustly disproportionate.” The 

agreement preserved for each party the assets and liabilities 

with which they entered the marriage and provided that any 

assets or liabilities acquired during the marriage would be 

joint property, and it released both parties from alimony or 

support obligations.13 These terms do not rise to the level of 

substantive unconscionability. The applicable statute 

specifically permits PMAs providing for “modification or 

elimination of spousal support,” and “disposition of property 

upon . . . marital dissolution.” HRS § 572D-3(a)(3)-(4). 

Moreover, Wife has not established that, based on the statutory 

factors in HRS § 580-47 (2018),14 she would have been awarded 

 13 The agreement also provided that, if the parties were still married at 

the time of Husband’s death, Wife would receive 100% of Husband’s Thrift 

Savings Plan benefit and life insurance policies, so long as all of Husband’s 

dependent children were over age 22. If any dependent children were under 

age 22 at the time of Husband’s death, the benefit would be split between 

Wife and the children in equal shares. Further, the agreement expresses 

Husband’s intent to will “all previously acquired real estate and future real 

estate acquired jointly to the Wife at time of his death.” 

14 HRS § 580-47 states in relevant part:

In addition to any other relevant factors considered, 

the court, in ordering spousal support and maintenance, 

shall consider the following factors:

(1) Financial resources of the parties;

(continued . . .)
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

36

spousal support absent the PMA. 

As to procedural unconscionability, crediting 

Husband’s account of events as the family court did, the PMA was 

not procedurally unconscionable. According to the testimony 

that the family court found credible, Wife had the opportunity 

to review the PMA, have independent counsel review it (though 

she chose not to), and negotiate with Husband for more favorable 

terms. There is no evidence that the family court found 

 (2) Ability of the party seeking support and 

maintenance to meet his or her needs 

independently;

(3) Duration of the marriage;

(4) Standard of living established during the 

marriage;

(5) Age of the parties;

(6) Physical and emotional condition of the parties;

(7) Usual occupation of the parties during the 

marriage;

(8) Vocational skills and employability of the party 

seeking support and maintenance;

(9) Needs of the parties;

(10) Custodial and child support responsibilities;

(11) Ability of the party from whom support and 

maintenance is sought to meet his or her own 

needs while meeting the needs of the party 

seeking support and maintenance;

(12) Other factors which measure the financial 

condition in which the parties will be left as 

the result of the action under which the 

determination of maintenance is made; and

(13) Probable duration of the need of the party 

seeking support and maintenance.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

37

credible that would indicate Wife did not have full knowledge –

or the chance to obtain full knowledge – of Husband’s financial 

situation. Schedule A1, attached to the PMA, lists Husband’s 

assets, and Wife has not argued that the list is incomplete. 

Hence, the PMA was not unconscionable.

B. The Family Court Did Not Err by Considering the Custody 

Evaluator’s Report

Pursuant to HRS § 571-46(4), custody evaluators’ 

reports “may be received in evidence if no objection is made 

and, if objection is made, may be received in evidence; provided 

the person or persons responsible for the report are available 

for cross-examination[.]” A custody evaluator’s expert opinion 

is treated as evidence, and the family court as factfinder is 

permitted to assign weight to that opinion based on its 

credibility assessment. See Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai‘i 41, 

50-51, 137 P.3d 355, 364-65 (2006) (“Inasmuch as the family 

court accorded weight to certain witnesses over others and those 

witnesses [including the custody evaluator] provided evidence 

that the relocation would benefit the children, the ICA did not 

err in upholding the family court’s findings and conclusions 

regarding the best interests of the children.”); see also In re 

Doe, 95 Hawai‘i 183, 197, 20 P.3d 616, 630 (2001); cf. D.J. v. 

C.J., 147 Hawai‘i 2, 22, 464 P.3d 790, 810 (2020) (arguing that 

the family court erred in considering a custody evaluator’s 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

38

report that omitted arguably relevant information went to the 

report’s weight, not its admissibility).

Counsel for Wife cross-examined Dr. Kennedy with 

respect to each of the inconsistencies and errors Wife raises in 

her certiorari application. S.A. and J.D., the two people whose 

interviews were omitted from Dr. Kennedy’s report, testified at 

trial as to what they told Dr. Kennedy during their interviews. 

Thus, the family court was able to appropriately consider Dr. 

Kennedy’s credibility and the probative value of the report. 

C. The Family Court Did Not Err by Failing to Find that 

Husband Abused the TRO Process to Gain an Advantage in a 

Custody Dispute

“A parent’s prior [willful] misuse of the protection 

from abuse process under chapter 586 to gain a tactical 

advantage in any proceeding involving the custody determination 

of a minor” is one of the factors that the family court must 

consider in determining the best interests of a child. HRS 

§ 571-46(b)(16). Further:

Such [willful] misuse may be considered only if it is 

established by clear and convincing evidence, and if it is 

further found by clear and convincing evidence that in the 

particular family circumstance the [willful] misuse tends 

to show that, in the future, the parent who engaged in the 

[willful] misuse will not be able to cooperate successfully 

with the other parent in their shared responsibilities for 

the child.

HRS § 571-46(b)(16).

Husband obtained a TRO against Wife on behalf of the 

minor child, although his petition did not list any instances of 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

39

abuse against the minor child. The child was removed from the 

scope of the TRO at the first hearing on the matter, on 

November 2, 2016, to allow Wife visitation with the child. Wife 

relied on these facts, along with her contention that Husband 

lied about the instances of abuse he listed on the TRO 

application, to argue that Husband misused the TRO process to 

gain a tactical advantage.

This evidence fails to “clear[ly] and convincing[ly]” 

show (1) a willful misuse of the TRO process or (2) that the 

misuse gave Husband any tactical advantage in the custody 

dispute. Further, there was no evidence regarding the TRO that 

showed Husband could not cooperate with Wife in the future. 

Wife’s third point of error is thus meritless. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the ICA’s 

March 4, 2020 Judgment on Appeal pursuant to its February 6, 

2020 Memorandum Opinion affirming the Decree Granting Absolute 

Divorce and Awarding Child Custody entered by the Family Court 

of the First Circuit on May 20, 2019.

Michael A. Glenn /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

for petitioner

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

Scot Stuart Brower

for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Gary W.B. Chang