NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NOS. CAAP-21-0000509, CAAP-21-0000521, CAAP-21-0000522,

CAAP-21-0000523, AND CAAP-21-0000524

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

NO. CAAP-21-0000509

IN THE INTEREST OF LI

(FC-S NO. 18-00034)

NO. CAAP-21-0000521

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF LI

(FC-G NO. 18-1-6221)

NO. CAAP-21-0000522

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF LI

(FC-G NO. 20-1-6243)

NO. CAAP-21-0000523

IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTION OF LI

(FC-A NO. 20-1-6175)

NO. CAAP-21-0000524

IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTION OF LI

(FC-A NO. 21-1-6112)

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

This case involves competing petitions for the adoption

of a child which were filed by the child's paternal aunt and by

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-21-0000509

26-MAY-2023

09:36 AM

Dkt. 149 MO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the child's resource caregiver. In this consolidated appeal,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee Mother (Mother) appeals and

Intervenor/Appellee-Cross-Appellant EI (Paternal Aunt) crossappeals from the "Orders Concerning Child Protective Act" entered

by the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court)1 on

September 2, 2021.2 The Family Court determined it is in LI

(Child's) best interest to be adopted by Petitioner/Resource

Caregiver-Appellee IC (RCG). On October 18, 2021, the Family

Court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOFs/COLs)

for the contested placement trial.

On appeal, Mother contends that under Hawaii Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 587A-15(c)(2) (2018) she had the right to

consent or agree to Paternal Aunt's guardianship and/or adoption

of Child prior to the termination of Mother's parental rights. 

Mother asserts she agreed to guardianship and then adoption of

Child by Paternal Aunt, and argues the Family Court should have

considered Child's permanent placement before terminating

Mother's parental rights. Additionally Mother contends RCG

and/or Appellee-Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) failed to meet their

burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that placement

of Child with RCG is in Child's best interest. Relatedly, Mother

challenges FOFs 183 and 225, and COLs 16, 20-23, 29, 30, 34, 35,

37, and 38.3

1 The Honorable Andrew T. Park presided. 

2 This court granted consolidation by order filed December 15, 2021,

and the appeals were consolidated under CAAP-21-0000509. The remaining

appeals arise from Paternal Aunt's appeal of the following orders entered by

the Family Court on September 10, 2021: (1) CAAP-21-521 arises from the Order

Denying Petition for Appointment of Guardian of a Minor in FC-G No.18-1-6221;

(2) CAAP-21-522 arises from the Order Denying Petition for Appointment of

Guardian of a Minor in FC-G No.20-1-6243; (3) CAAP-21-523 arises from the

Order Denying Petition for Adoption in FC-A No.20-1-6175; and (4) CAAP-21-524

arises from the Findings and Order Setting Further Hearing in FC-A No.21-1-

6112.

3 Mother also challenges FOFs 50, 55, 56, 135-37, 148, 150, 351, 377,

390, 391, 395, 398-401, 403, 405, 406, 409-12, 414-17, 421, and 424-30. Mother

asserts her objection to the FOFs she lists is "based on the arguments as set

forth in her Opening Brief[,]" or based on the trial testimony of the

witnesses "generally". However, Mother presents no discernible argument as to

(continued...)

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

On cross-appeal, Paternal Aunt contends the Family

Court erred in: (1) failing to consider ethnicity and culture as

factors in its best interest of the child analysis and failing to

treat kinship as a substantial factor; (2) untimely considering

Paternal Aunt's petitions for guardianship and adoption; and (3)

granting RCG's request for a continuance of the permanent

placement trial on January 5, 2021.4

3(...continued)

why these FOFs are clearly erroneous and does not refer to these challenged

FOFs in her arguments section. This court is "not obliged to address matters

for which the appellants have failed to present discernible arguments." Hussey

v. Say, 139 Hawai#i 181, 191, 384 P.3d 1282, 1292 (2016) (citation omitted). 

4 Paternal Aunt also challenges a multitude of FOFs as recitations of

testimony that should be vacated because they are not findings of fact.

Specifically, Paternal Aunt challenges FOFs 78-82, 86-88, 91, 110, 130,

134-36, 138-39, 143, 147-52, 167-73, 175-79, 181-82, 185-90, 195, 197,

200-201, 203-15, 217-24, 226, 233, 237-39, 241-43, 246-47, 251, 253-56,

263-65, 267-78, 280-81, 289, 307-14, 316-18, 322-25, 328, 330, 335-36, 340,

343-44, 346-53, 357, 360-69, 371-76, and 379-83. Paternal Aunt, citing In re

Doe, 96 Hawai#i 255, 259, 30 P.3d 269, 273 (App. 2001), challenges these FOFs

as mere "recitations of testimony," and argues they should be vacated. We

agree that the Family Court's statement of the evidence, by itself, is not a

finding of fact. See id.

However, as we explained in Doe, although we do not recommend doing it

this way, we conclude that FOFs 93, 117, 140, 153, 183, 225, 279, 292, 354,

384, which state the Family Court's determinations as to credibility and

resolve conflicting evidence, validly convert the recitations of testimony

into FOFs. See id. (holding that the family court's findings which in effect

state that the court found the stated evidence to be credible evidence of the

facts validly convert statements of the evidence into FOFs); In re Adoption of

HA, 143 Hawai#i 64, 77, 422 P.3d 642, 655 (App. 2017) (explaining that

findings of fact which primarily contain recitals of witness testimony with no

actual statement of the court's determination as to credibility, weight, or

resolution of conflicting evidence do not properly state findings).

Paternal Aunt also challenges FOFs 390, 398-403, 406, 408-17, 421, 424,

427-29 and COLs 8, 12, 13, 20-22, 25, 29, 30, and 34 as erroneous or

unsupported by the evidence but fails to provide any corresponding argument

regarding these FOFs and COLs. Instead, Paternal Aunt appears to challenge

these FOFs and COLs generally in the context of her challenge to the Family

Court's best interest of the child analysis. We address these FOFs and COLs in

considering her arguments regarding the best interest of the child. 

Paternal Aunt further challenges FOFs 109, 110, 370, 377, and 378 as

clearly erroneous and provides some argument to support her assertion of

error. However, based on the record, these FOFs are either not clearly

erroneous or they reflect the testimony of the witnesses and are thus not

clearly erroneous. See In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i at 183, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001).

Similarly, Paternal Aunt argues that FOFs 425, 426, and 430 are

erroneous because they are actually COLs. However, "[a] conclusion of law is

not rendered immune from review because labelled [sic] a finding of fact." 

(continued...)

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND 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, we resolve Mother's

and Paternal Aunt's points of error as follows, and affirm. 

I. Background

The following factual and procedural background is

taken from the record and the Family Court's unchallenged FOFs

which are binding on appeal.5

On February 18, 2018, Appellee/Cross-Appellee

Department of Human Services (DHS) assumed placement

responsibility of Child via police protective custody because

Mother had been arrested in connection with the death of Child's

biological father (Father) and Child was left with no legal

caretaker. On February 21, 2018, DHS filed a petition for

temporary foster custody of Child, which initiated the underlying

case, FC-S No.18-00034. At that time, Child was a little over

two and a half years old. 

On April 9, 2018, Child entered Foster Care and was

moved to the home of RCG. At the time of placement, RCG, along

with her long-time partner (RCG's Partner), were provisionally

approved as resource caregivers and Child remained with RCG

throughout the proceedings.6

In September 2018, Paternal Aunt, a California

resident, filed her Petition for Appointment of a Guardian of a 

4(...continued)

Molokoa Village Dev. Co. v. Kauai Elec. Co., 60 Haw. 582, 595-96, 593 P.2d

375, 384 (1979) (citing 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure:

Civil § 2588 (1971)). Paternal Aunt fails to provide any arguments regarding

these FOFs and thus we decline to address them.

Finally, Paternal Aunt challenges all FOFs relating to expert testimony

as "incomplete" and FOFs 112 and 392 as vague. However, the trial judge is

only required to make brief, definite, pertinent findings. State v. RamosSaunders, 135 Hawai#i 299, 304-05, 349 P.3d 406, 411-12 (App. 2015).

5 Unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal. In re Doe, 99

Hawai#i 522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002).

6 RCG and RCG's Partner live together with RCG's four biological

children, three of whom were fathered by RCG's Partner and one of whom is from

a prior relationship.

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

Minor in the Family Court in FC-G No.18-1-6221. On April 18,

2019, an ICPC7 home study was completed and Paternal Aunt's home

in California was approved as a potential placement for Child. 

In September 2020, RCG filed a Guardianship Petition

seeking guardianship over Child in FC-G No.20-1-6243. On

December 24, 2020, Paternal Aunt filed a Petition for Adoption

seeking to adopt Child in FC-A No.20-1-6175. 

On March 3, 2021, Mother stipulated to the termination

of her parental rights and the Family Court ruled that Mother

would remain a party and would be permitted to participate in the

contested placement trial. On May 13, 2021, RCG filed a Petition

for Adoption seeking to adopt Child in FC-A No.21-1-6112. 

After a seven day trial regarding Child's permanent

placement, held on May 25-27, June 1, June 23, and July 19-20,

2021, the Family Court entered its "Orders Concerning Child

Protective Act" on September 2, 2021. The Family Court

determined, inter alia, that RCG proved by a preponderance of the

evidence that DHS's recommendation to place Child with Paternal

Aunt was not in the best interest of Child; it is in Child's best

interest to be adopted by RCG; and it is not in Child's best

interest to be removed from Child's current placement with RCG to

be placed with Paternal Aunt in California.8

On October 18, 2021, the Family Court entered its

FOFs/COLs, consisting of four-hundred and thirty FOFs and thirtyeight COLs.

Both Mother and Paternal Aunt appealed.

7 ICPC is an acronym for the Interstate Compact on Placement of

Children. ICPC provides for the legal transport of a child between states in

a foster or adoption placement. See HRS Chapter 350E (2015).

8 The Family Court made numerous findings on why adoption by RCG was in

Child's best interest. The Family Court's unchallenged FOFs in its analysis

of the best interest of Child provide that, inter alia, Child has been in

RCG's care for more than three years and has thrived in RCG's care; Child is

strongly attached to RCG and RCG's Partner, they are strongly bonded to Child,

and they are Child's psychological parents; Child is also strongly bonded to

RCG's children and views them as her brothers; and both RCG and RCG's Partner

have extended family living in Hawai#i and Child has relationships on both

sides of their family that would be lost if she were to move to California. 

Further, although challenged by Mother, the Family Court found that RCG and

RCG's Partner have worked to maintain Child's connections with her family and

RCG credibly testified she would do so in the future. 

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

II. Standards of Review

A. Family Court Decisions 

"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." Kakinami v. Kakinami,

127 Hawai#i 126, 136, 276 P.3d 695, 705 (2012) (citation

omitted). "Thus, we will not disturb the family court's decisions

on appeal unless the family court disregarded rules or principles

of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party

litigant and its decision clearly exceeded the bounds of reason."

In re Adoption of HA, 143 Hawai#i at 74, 422 P.3d at 652.

Additionally, "[t]he family court's determination of

what is or is not in a child's best interests is reviewed on

appeal for clear error." Id. at 75, 422 P.3d at 653 (citation

omitted). "Moreover, the family court is given much leeway in its

examination of the reports concerning a child's care, custody,

and welfare, and its conclusions in this regard, if supported by

the record and not clearly erroneous, must stand on appeal." Id.

(citation omitted).

B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

The family court's findings of fact are reviewed under the

clearly erroneous standard. A finding of fact 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. 

The family court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

Balogh v. Balogh, 134 Hawai#i 29, 38, 332 P.3d 631, 640 (2014)

(quoting Kakinami, 127 Hawai#i at 136, 276 P.3d at 706) (internal

quotation marks omitted). 

C. Motions to Continue

"We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a

motion to continue for an abuse of discretion." Onaka v. Onaka,

112 Hawai#i 374, 378, 146 P.3d 89, 93 (2006).

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

III. Discussion

A. Mother's Rights Were Not Violated

Mother and Paternal Aunt contend the Family Court

should have granted Paternal Aunt's petition for guardianship

and/or adoption because Mother consented prior to the termination

of her parental rights. We disagree. 

Mother contends she had the fundamental right to agree

to Paternal Aunt's guardianship of Child under HRS § 560:5-204.

HRS § 560:5-204 (2018) provides, in pertinent part: 

(b) The court may appoint a guardian for a minor if the

court finds the appointment is in the minor's best interest,

and:

(1) The parents consent;

(2) All parental rights have been terminated; or

(3) The parents are unwilling or unable to exercise 

 their parental rights. 

(Emphases added.) 

Mother also contends she had the right to consent to

adoption under HRS § 587A-15(c)(2), which provides, 

(c) Unless otherwise provided in this section or as

otherwise ordered by the court, a child's family shall

retain the following rights and responsibilities after a

transfer of temporary foster custody or foster custody, to

the extent that the family possessed the rights and

responsibilities prior to the transfer of temporary foster

custody or foster custody:

. . . 

(2) The right to consent to adoption, to marriage, or to

major medical or psychological care or treatment[.]

(Emphases added.)

Adoption proceedings are governed by HRS Chapter 578.

In re Adoption of HA, 143 Hawai#i at 75, 422 P.3d at 653. HRS

§ 578-8(a) (Supp. 2019) sets forth requirements for entering an

adoption decree which provides, in pertinent part: 

(a) No decree of adoption shall be entered unless a hearing

has been held . . . . After considering the petition and any

evidence as the petitioners and any other properly

interested person may wish to present, the court may enter a

decree of adoption if it is satisfied that:

. . .

(4) The adoption will be for the best interests of the

individual[.]

(Emphases added.)

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Here, Mother and Paternal Aunt appear to assert that

Mother's right to consent to guardianship and/or adoption means

that the Family Court was required to grant Paternal Aunt's

petitions. However, parental consent is not the sole factor, and

the Family Court was required to consider the best interest of

Child before granting guardianship under HRS § 560:5-204 or

adoption under HRS § 578-8(a).9 Mother and Paternal Aunt present

no argument as to how consideration of Paternal Aunt's petitions

prior to the termination of Mother's parental rights would have

affected or changed the Family Court's best interest of the child

analysis. Moreover, although Mother's parental rights had been

terminated by stipulation in March 2021, the Family Court ruled

that Mother would remain a party and would be permitted to

participate in the contested placement trial. The trial was held

starting in May 2021, and Mother was represented by counsel and

participated in the trial.

Finally, Mother and Paternal Aunt also contend the

Family Court did not timely consider Paternal Aunt's petition for

guardianship given Mother's consent to guardianship in 2018. 

This argument is without merit. Based on our review of the

record, Mother did not give her consent to Paternal Aunt's

guardianship of Child in 2018. Instead, Mother wanted Child

placed with a maternal family friend who resided in California. 

The Family Court's uncontested FOF 31 states, "DHS requested an

ICPC home study for a non-relative family friend of Mother's who

lived in California, but the request was denied on January 23,

2019, when that friend indicated that she was no longer able to

care for [Child]." The Family Court's uncontested FOF 100 states

9 To the extent Mother contends the Family Court erred procedurally by

terminating her parental rights prior to considering Child's adoption, we note

that Mother did not appeal the Order Terminating Parental Rights entered by

the Family Court on March 31, 2021. Mother stipulated to the termination of

her parental rights and the Order Terminating Parental Rights states,

"[Mother] intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily stipulated to permanent

custody and the permanent plan dated March 25, 2020[.]" Moreover, Mother fails

to cite to any authority to support her contention that the Family Court was

required to first make an adoption or guardianship determination prior to the

termination of Mother's parental rights.

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"Mother was not agreeable to guardianship for Paternal Aunt until

after the friend withdrew from consideration."

Paternal Aunt also argues that the Family Court should

have granted her guardianship petition in 2019, after the ICPC

was approved for her home because Mother consented to Paternal

Aunt's guardianship. As explained above, Mother's consent alone

was insufficient for granting guardianship. Moreover, Mother did

not consent to Paternal Aunt's guardianship in 2019, and it was

not until a hearing on June 18, 2020, that Mother consented to

Paternal Aunt's permanent guardianship. Thereafter, Paternal

Aunt filed a petition for adoption with Mother's consent on

December 24, 2020. The Family Court set the permanent placement

trial to consider guardianship and/or adoption the following

month in January 2021. Subsequently, to address an expert report

received in December 2020, the court continued the trial to May

25, 2021, less than six months after the petition for adoption

was filed.

Given the record in this case, the Family Court did not

violate Mother's rights, and further, the court's consideration

of Child's permanent placement was not untimely.

B. Best Interest of Child

Mother and Paternal Aunt assert the Family Court erred

in determining Child's adoption by RCG is in the best interest of

the child. Mother and Parental Aunt disagree with the Family

Court's credibility determinations and the weight of the

evidence.

Specifically, Mother contends the evidence presented

during the contested placement trial showed that it is in Child's

best interest to be adopted by Paternal Aunt. In support of her

argument, Mother cites the expert testimony regarding Child's

placement by Dr. Irada Wattanavitukul (Dr. Wattanavitukul) and

Dr. Steven Choy (Dr. Choy).10 Similarly, Paternal Aunt argues

10 On August 5, 2019, Child began therapy with Family Programs Hawaii.

Her regular therapist was Dr. Wattanavitukul, who was supervised by Dr. Choy. 

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the Family Court blatantly abused its discretion by

"disregard[ing] the great weight of expert testimony in favor of

kin[.]" Paternal Aunt also argues the Family court gave kinship,

ethnicity and culture inadequate weight in determining the best

interest of Child. 

However, the Family Court found in FOFs 183 and 225

that Dr. Wattanavitukul and Dr. Choy's testimony regarding

Child's placement with Paternal Aunt and the effect of such

placement on Child were not credible.11 The Family Court

accorded weight to certain witnesses over Dr. Wattanavitukul and

Dr. Choy, including Michelle Moorhead (Moorhead), who had been

Child's GAL from the beginning of the case and who supported

Child's adoption with RCG at the placement trial.12

"It is well-settled that an appellate court will not

pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and

the weight of evidence; this is the province of the trier of

fact." Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai#i 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360

(2006) (citation omitted). To the extent Mother and Paternal

11 In FOF 183, the Family Court found:

[w]hile the testimony of Dr. WATTANAVITUKUL was credible in

part, the opinions that she offered were not credible to the

court based on all the evidence in the case and the Court

did not find her opinions regarding a potential placement

with Paternal Aunt or the effect of such a placement on

[Child] to be credible. 

(Emphasis added.)

Similarly, in FOF 225, the Family Court found, 

[b]ased upon the evidence in the case and the conflicts

between the testimony of Dr. WATTANAVITUKUL and Dr. CHOY

regarding the preparation of the December 30, 2020, report,

the Court did not find Dr. CHOY's opinions regarding

placement of [Child] with Paternal Aunt or the effect of

such a placement on [Child] to be credible. The Court did

not find his opinions regarding "ethnic identity" to be

credible.

(Emphasis added.)

12 After the appeals to this court, Michelle Moorhead no longer serves

as GAL because she no longer works with the Legal Aid Society, and a new GAL

was substituted for Child. 

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Aunt's arguments challenge the Family Court's FOFs regarding

credibility and the weight of the evidence, these issues are

within the province of the Family Court and we will not review

them.13

With regard to Paternal Aunt's argument that the Family

Court failed to consider ethnicity, culture and religion as

factors and only considered "kinship," the Family Court

considered "all the evidence presented in the case as well as the

information contained in the files and pleadings of the case." 

The Family Court's FOFs also refer to Paternal Aunt's testimony

which the Family Court found credible, including that Paternal

Aunt believes it is important for Child to learn to speak Spanish

because Paternal Aunt believes that other children will make fun

of Child for being unable to speak Spanish. Paternal Aunt also

testified that she believes Child should be raised as a Catholic

because that is Child's religion of origin. Therefore, the

Family Court considered Child's ethnicity, culture and religion

13 Mother and Paternal Aunt's primary argument is that the expert

opinions of Dr. Choy and Dr. Wattanavitukul in support of adoption by Paternal

Aunt clearly outweighed any evidence in favor of adoption by RCG. However,

the Family Court expressly did not find Dr. Choy and Dr. Wattanavitukul's

testimonies regarding potential placement with Paternal Aunt, or Dr. Choy's

opinions on "ethnic identity," to be credible. The Family Court found, inter

alia, that: Dr. Choy attended some of Child's sessions with Dr. Wattanavitukul

in person and sometimes only viewed videotaped sessions; Dr. Choy never

visited RCG's home or interviewed RCG's Partner, never met RCG's children, had

not made an evaluation of RCG's home, and never spoke with any of Child's

teachers; and Paternal Aunt participated in some of Child's sessions with Dr.

Wattanavitukul, but RCG and RCG's Partner were not invited to Child's sessions

with Dr. Wattanavitukul because they were not family. The Family Court found

it is inappropriate for a child's therapist to make a placement recommendation

when they have not investigated both potential placements. The Family Court

also noted the conflicting testimonies by Dr. Choy and Dr. Wattanavitukul

regarding who prepared the December 30, 2020 report as a factor in determining

Dr. Choy's credibility. Dr. Wattanavitukul testified that she wrote the

December 30, 2020 report and the changes Dr. Choy made were just corrections

of her grammar and word choice. In contrast, Dr. Choy testified that he wrote

the December 30, 2020 report and Dr. Wattanavitukul either misunderstood or

lied about writing the report.

The Family Court found that Child's GAL, Moorhead, was credible. 

Moorhead testified that she considered placement with Paternal Aunt but

recommended it would be in Child's best interest to stay in her current

placement and be adopted by RCG. Moorhead testified that she had observed

Child and Parental Aunt interact in-person on several occasions, including the

first supervised visit around July 2019, and in Parent Child Interactive

Therapy sessions. 

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

in determining permanent placement and the best interest of

Child.

Further, in arguing that kinship should be given

substantial weight, Paternal Aunt asks this court to overrule the

Hawai#i Supreme Court's holding in In re AS, that there is no

statutory preference for relatives in permanent placement cases

under HRS Chapter 587A.14 In re AS, 132 Hawai#i 368, 387, 322

P.3d 263, 282 (2014) (stating "[t]here being no state statutory

relative preference in permanent placement cases, we disapprove

of DHS's Policy Directives PA Nos. 2005–5, –7, and –8, which

directed the CWSB to give preference to relatives in determining

a foster child's permanent placement, to the extent that those

policies imply that DHS may do so without regard to the child's

best interests, which are always paramount." (emphasis omitted)). 

We are bound by the Hawai#i Supreme Court's ruling in In re AS

and cannot overrule it.

C. The Family Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion

 In Continuing the Contested Placement Trial

Finally, Paternal Aunt contends the Family Court abused

its discretion by granting RCG a continuance of the contested

placement trial on January 5, 2021, which was scheduled to begin

that day. We disagree. 

14 Paternal Aunt further argues that children have a fundamental

liberty interest to a familial preference in placement and the right for trial

courts to consider the child's ethnic, cultural, and religious heritage in

permanent placement decisions and have such considerations given substantial

weight. GAL contends, inter alia, that Paternal Aunt failed to raise

constitutional issues in the Family Court. Thus, Paternal Aunt has waived her

arguments on appeal. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort

Co., 100 Hawai#i 97, 107, 58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002) ("Legal issues not raised in

the trial court are ordinarily deemed waived on appeal.").

To the extent Paternal Aunt argues ethnicity, culture and kinship should

be given more weight in determining permanent placement, the Hawai#i Supreme

Court has repeatedly affirmed that "the best interests of the child standard

[is] paramount when considering the issue of custody. In so doing, the family

court is granted broad discretion to weigh the various factors involved, with

no single factor being given presumptive paramount weight, in determining

whether the standard has been met." Fisher, 111 Hawai#i at 50, 137 P.3d at

364.

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On December 30, 2020, Dr. Choy submitted his

Psychological Treatment Report six days before the trial was

scheduled to begin on January 5, 2021. The report stated that,

since the last progress report dated June 5, 2020, "[Child] and

her biological family have a very strong cultural connection"

which "has become part of [Child]'s identity and this factor

needs to be a primary consideration in making decisions about her

permanent placement." 

On January 5, 2021, RCG requested a continuance to

obtain further discovery, and consult with and perhaps retain an

expert because Dr. Choy's report "represent[ed] expert opinions

that are substantially new and different from anything that we've

seen in the case." Over the objections of DHS, Mother, Paternal

Aunt, and GAL, the Family Court granted the continuance. The

Family Court found good cause for the delay in balancing the

period of delay that would be caused by the granting of a

continuance and the reason for the request. Moreover, the Family

Court noted that although trial was set to start on January 5,

2021, trial was not scheduled to conclude until March, and thus

the continuance would not delay the conclusion of the trial by a

significant amount.15 The record shows that the placement trial

was initially anticipated to start in early January 2021, take

three days, and end on March 3, 2021. The actual trial started

at the end of May 2021, took seven days, and ended on July 20,

2021.

Paternal Aunt fails to provide an argument that the

Family Court's grant of the continuance "disregarded rules or

principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a

party litigant and its decision clearly exceeded the bounds of

reason." In re Adoption of HA, 143 Hawai#i at 74, 422 P.3d at

652. 

15 The initial trial dates were January 5, January 6, and March 3,

2021. 

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Given the record, the Family Court did not abuse its

discretion in granting RCG's request for a continuance of the

trial.

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the

following orders entered by the Family Court of the First

Circuit:

 (1) the Orders Concerning Child Protective Act entered

on September 2, 2021; 

(2) the Order Denying Petition for Appointment of

Guardian of a Minor in FC-G No.18-1-6221 entered on September 10,

2021; 

(3) the Order Denying Petition for Appointment of

Guardian of a Minor in FC-G No.20-1-6243 entered on September 10,

2021; 

(4) the Order Denying Petition for Adoption in FC-A

No.20-1-6175 entered on September 10, 2021; and 

(5) the Findings and Order Setting Further Hearing in

FC-A No.21-1-6112 entered on September 10, 2021.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 26, 2023.

On the briefs:

Rebecca S. Lester, 

for Appellant/Cross-Appellee

Kai Lawrence, 

for Intervenor/Appellee-CrossAppellant

Emily M. Hills,

Legal Aid Society of Hawai#i

for Appellee-Guardian Ad Litem

Francis T. O'Brien,

for Intervenor-Appellee

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

14