NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-18-0000352

(Consolidated with No. CAAP-18-0000353)

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

CAAP-18-0000352

PO, Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant,

v.

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Appellee-Appellee,

and

JK, Respondent-Appellee-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(FC-AP NO. 17-1-0001)

and

CAAP-18-0000353

PO, Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant,

v.

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Appellee-Appellee,

and

JK, Respondent-Appellee-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(FC-AP NO. 17-1-0002)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

In CAAP-18-0000352 self-represented PetitionerAppellant PO (Father) appeals from the "Order Affirming the

Administrative Findings and Order Filed on December 9, 2016"

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000352

22-JAN-2021

07:56 AM

Dkt. 78 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

entered by the Family Court of the Third Circuit1 on March 23,

2018, in FC-AP No. 17-1-0001 (Appeal No. 1). In CAAP-18-0000353

Father appeals from the "Order Affirming the Administrative

Findings and Order Filed on December 9, 2016" entered by the

Family Court of the Third Circuit on March 23, 2018, in FC-AP

No. 17-1-0002 (Appeal No. 2). We consolidated the appeals on

March 21, 2019. For the reasons explained below, we affirm both

orders.

BACKGROUND

Child was born in 1992. Appellee JK (Mother) is

Child's natural mother. Child's birth certificate identified

someone other than Father as Child's father. Father believed

that he was Child's natural father, and sought to correct Child's

birth certificate. He went to the State of Hawai#i Child Support

Enforcement Agency (CSEA) for assistance.

On July 28, 1994, Father submitted a CSEA Application

Form. He identified himself as the "Absent Parent" and Mother as

the "Custodial Parent[.]" The form stated:

I understand that I, the applicant, if eligible, will be a

recipient of services of the [CSEA], and that the deputies

Attorney General and deputies Corporation Counsel who may be

involved in my case represent the [CSEA], not me, in any

child support matter.

I understand that the [CSEA] may pursue . . . current child

support, arrears, and modification of existing child support

orders either administratively or through judicial process. 

I agree that the decision of how to proceed in my case is

the [CSEA's], not mine.

. . . .

In signing this application for Child Support Enforcement

Services, I declare under penalty of perjury that I have

physical custody of the following child(ren) for whom

services are sought: [blank]

(lined out text in original.) Father signed the application

form.2

1 The Honorable Dakota K.M. Frenz presided over both of the cases on

appeal.

2 Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 584-6(a) (Supp. 1992) authorizes

"a man . . . alleging himself to be the natural father" of a child to "bring

an action for the purpose of declaring the existence . . . of the father and

(continued...)

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

Mother denied that Father was Child's father. Father

requested genetic testing for himself and for the person who

Mother claimed was Child's father. On December 28, 1994, in

State, Child Support Enf't Agency v. JK, FC-P No. 94-222

(Paternity Action), the family court entered an order for genetic

testing. The order stated:

5. That as Defendant [Father] has requested genetic

testing, but is unable to pay for the entire cost at this

time, the [CSEA], shall advance the entire cost of the

genetic testing fees, to wit: $400.00. Said amount of

$400.00 shall be subject to reimbursement by Defendant

[Father] at the rate of $25.00 monthly installments with the

first installment due on December 7, 1994. Defendant

[Father] shall make said monthly payments of $25.00 in the

form of a cashier's check, certified check or money order

made payable and sent to the [CSEA.]

On January 31, 1996, the family court entered "Findings

of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment" (Judgment of Paternity)

in the Paternity Action. The family court concluded, based on

genetic testing, that Father was Child's biological father. The

Judgment of Paternity ordered:

3. That Defendant, [Father], who has a duty to

support [Child], shall pay child support in the amount of

$130.00 per month, by an Order for Income Assignment upon

Defendant, [Father], obtaining employment, with the first

payment commencing June 1995 and continuing until [Child]

reaches eighteen (18) years of age, and so long thereafter,

including summer months, as [Child] is pursuing a high

school diploma or so long as [Child] continues [their]

post-high school education on a full-time basis at an

accredited college or university, or in a vocational or

trade school, or until [Child] attains the age of 23 years

whichever occurs first, unless [Child] thereto shall die, be

adopted, become emancipated or self-supporting, or until

further order of the Court;

4. That all payments shall be made by cashier's

check, certified check or money order made payable and sent

to the [CSEA.]

According to Father, Mother and he agreed that Mother would not

require Father to support Child, but Father was not to be

involved in Child's life in any way. Nevertheless, Father did

not appeal any of the provisions of the Judgment of Paternity.

2 (...continued)

child relationship[.]"

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

On December 9, 2016, CSEA filed findings and orders in

two administrative proceedings based upon the order for genetic

testing and the Judgment of Paternity. The order in FC-P No. 94-

0222 stated, in relevant part:

GENETIC FEE TESTING FEES DEBT OWING TO STATE OF HAWAII:

$400.00 for the period December 7, 1994 through October 31,

2016 is owing to the State of Hawaii and JUDGMENT THEREFOR

IS HEREBY ENTERED. Responsible Parent [Father] shall pay

$25.00 per month until said debt is fully satisfied.

CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE OWING TO [JK]:

$2,870.00 for the period January 1, 2008 through

December 31, 2009. In addition, a remaining balance of

$0.00 is owing for the previously established arrearage.

Total arrearage is $2,870.00 and JUDGMENT THEREFOR IS HEREBY

ENTERED. This amount includes all monies received by CSEA

as of October 31, 2016. Responsible Parent [Father] shall

pay $50.00 per month until said arrearage is fully

satisfied.

PAYMENT AMOUNT: Payment for the obligation(s) addressed in

this order shall be $75.00, per month commencing November 1,

2016.

The order in FC-APB No. 10-1-0016 stated, in relevant part:

CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE OWING TO [JK]:

$700.00 for the period January 1, 2010 through August 31,

2010. In addition, a remaining balance of $19,630.00 is

owing for the previously established arrearage.

Total arrearage is $20,330.00 and JUDGMENT THEREFOR IS

HEREBY ENTERED. This amount includes all monies received by

CSEA as of October 31, 2016[]. Responsible Parent [Father]

shall pay $125.00 per month until said arrearage is fully

satisfied.

PAYMENT AMOUNT: Payment for the obligation(s) addressed in

this order shall be $125.00, per month commencing

November 1, 2016.

Father appealed to the family court from each of the

administrative orders, creating Appeal No. 1 and Appeal No. 2. 

The family court heard consolidated arguments on February 23,

2018. On March 23, 2018, the family court entered orders

affirming the administrative findings and orders in each of the

appeals. These secondary appeals followed.

DISCUSSION

Father contends that the family court: (1) erred by

holding CSEA had authority to enforce the child support orders

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

without a request from Mother; (2) violated Rule 72(k) of the

Hawai#i Family Court Rules (HFCR); and (3) erred by affirming the

order requiring that Father pay for the genetic testing he

requested, contrary to 45 C.F.R. § 303.5(e)(3)3.

Our review of a family court decision on an appeal from

an administrative agency determination is a secondary appeal; we

must determine whether the family court was right or wrong in its

decision, applying the standards set forth in Hawaii Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 91–14(g) (Supp. 2017) to the agency's decision. 

Flores v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Res., 143 Hawai#i 114, 120, 424 P.3d

469, 475 (2018) (reviewing circuit court agency appeal). HRS

§ 91–14, entitled "Judicial review of contested cases[,]"

provides in relevant part:

(g) Upon review of the record, the court may

affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case

with instructions for further proceedings; or it may

reverse or modify the decision and order if the

substantial rights of the petitioners may have been

prejudiced because the administrative findings,

conclusions, decisions, or orders are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or

statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority or

jurisdiction of the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable,

probative, and substantial evidence on the

whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized

by abuse of discretion or clearly

unwarranted exercise of discretion.

1. CSEA was authorized to enforce 

the Judgment of Paternity. 

Father contends that HRS Chapter 576E ("Administrative

Process for Child Support Enforcement") did not authorize CSEA to

enforce the Judgment of Paternity because Mother did not request

3 Father actually cites to 45 C.F.R. § 303.5(3), which does not

exist. We construe his argument to be based upon 45 C.F.R. § 303.5(e)(3).

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

enforcement. He refers to HRS Chapter 576E,4 but his argument

cites HRS § 576D-3(b)(3) (2006):

§ 576D-3 Obtaining or enforcing child support. (a)

The [CSEA] shall undertake any legal or administrative

action to secure support for a child by enforcing an

existing court order or obtaining a court order of support.

(b) To carry out its responsibilities imposed under

this chapter, the [CSEA], through the offices of the

corporation counsel, the county attorneys, or the attorney

general, may commence or appear in any proceeding before any

court or administrative agency for the purpose of

establishing paternity for children born out of wedlock or

for the purpose of obtaining, enforcing, or modifying an

order of support on behalf of any dependent or any other

person for whom the [CSEA] has a duty to obtain or enforce

an order for support under this chapter. The [CSEA] may

commence or appear in any action on its own behalf, on

behalf of any dependent child or custodial parent, or on

behalf of any other person for whom the [CSEA] has a duty to

obtain or enforce an order of support under this chapter. 

The [CSEA] shall obtain or enforce a child support order for

the following children:

(1) A child on whose behalf public assistance

payments have been or are being made;

(2) A child on whose behalf foster care payments

have been or are being made under Title IV-E; or

(3) Any other child, if a parent, guardian, or

person having custody applies to the [CSEA] for

assistance in obtaining or enforcing a child

support order with respect to the child,

regardless of whether public assistance payments

have been made on the child's behalf.

(Underscoring added.)

"The interpretation of a statute is a question of law

which an appellate court reviews de novo." Child Support Enf't

Agency v. Doe, 88 Hawai#i 159, 165, 963 P.2d 1135, 1141 (App.

1998) (cleaned up). "When interpreting a statute, our foremost

obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of

the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the

language contained in the statute itself." Id. (cleaned up).

The plain language of HRS § 576D-3 authorizes CSEA to

take legal action to enforce court orders such as the Judgment of

Paternity in this case. As Father points out, HRS § 576D-3(b)(3)

mandates that CSEA obtain and enforce child support orders upon

4 We note that HRS § 576E-2 (2006) confers broad powers upon the

attorney general which include the power to enforce the Judgment of Paternity

in this case.

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

request of a custodial parent. But the statutory authorization

is not limited to the situations described in HRS § 576D-3(b);

HRS § 576D-3(b) authorizes CSEA to commence enforcement actions

"on its own behalf." Cf. CSEA v. Doe, 88 Hawai#i at 167, 963 

P.2d at 1143 (noting that CSEA was authorized to obtain child

support order even where child was not in need of public

assistance). CSEA was authorized to enforce the Judgment of

Paternity.

2. The family court did not 

violate HFCR Rule 72(k).

Father contends that the family court violated HFCR

Rule 72(k), which governs appeals to the family court. The rule

provides, in relevant part:

(a) How taken. Where a right of appeal to the family

court is allowed by statute, any person or party allowed by

statute may appeal from such decision, order or action by

filing a notice of appeal in the family court having

jurisdiction of the matter. . . .

. . . .

(k) Judgment. Upon determination of the appeal, the

court having jurisdiction shall enter judgment. Such

judgment shall be reviewable, or final, as may be provided

by law. Promptly after final determination of the appeal in

the family court the clerk of the court shall notify the

parties and the governmental official or body concerned of

the disposition of the appeal.

HFCR Rule 72 applied to Appeal No. 1 and Appeal No. 2,

both of which were authorized by HRS § 576E-13.5 Upon determination of the appeals, the family court entered an "Order

Affirming the Administrative Findings and Order Filed on

December 9, 2016" in each case. Although not titled "judgments,"

the orders finally determined all of the issues in the appeals

and thus complied with HFCR Rule 72.

Father argues that the family court's orders "do[] not

express any findings and conclusions as to why it affirms" CSEA's

findings and orders in the two administrative proceedings. A

5 HRS § 576E-13 (2006) provides, in relevant part:

(a) Any party, including the [CSEA], who is aggrieved by a

final decision and order in a contested case . . . is

entitled to judicial review under [HRS] chapter 91.

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

family court reviewing an agency decision does not make its own

findings or conclusions; it reviews the agency's findings and

conclusions for error. In a secondary appeal we also review the

agency's findings and conclusions, not those of the family court,

to determine whether the family court was right or wrong in

deciding the primary appeal. "An agency's conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo, while an agency's factual findings are reviewed

for clear error." Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v.

International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, 128 Hawai#i

289, 302, 287 P.3d 190, 203 (2012). "A court reviewing an

agency's decision cannot consider the weight of the evidence to

ascertain whether it weighs in favor of the administrative

findings, or review the agency's findings of fact by passing upon

the credibility of witnesses or conflicts in testimony[.]" 

Sierra Club v. D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes, LLC, 136 Hawai#i 505,

522, 364 P.3d 213, 230 (2015) (cleaned up). The family court's

orders affirming CSEA's findings and orders did not violate HFCR

Rule 72(k).

3. The family court did not err by

affirming the order requiring that

Father pay genetic testing fees. 

Father contends that the order requiring him to pay

genetic testing fees is contrary to 45 C.F.R. § 303.5(e)(3). 

Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides, in relevant

part:

§ 303.5 Establishment of paternity.

. . . .

(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this

section, the [CSEA] may charge any individual who is not a

recipient of aid under the State's title IV-A [Block Grants

to States for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] or

XIX [Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs] plan

a reasonable fee for performing genetic tests.

. . . .

(3) If paternity is established and genetic tests were

ordered by the [CSEA], the [CSEA] must pay the costs of such

tests, subject to recoupment (if the [CSEA] elects) from the

alleged father who denied paternity.

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

45 C.F.R. § 303.5 (2016). The statute allows CSEA to recover

genetic testing costs from a natural father who denied paternity

even if the father is a recipient of a federal block grant or

medical assistance program. Father did not deny paternity. 45

C.F.R. § 303.5(e)(3) does not apply to Father.

Under 45 C.F.R. § 303.5(e)(1), CSEA was authorized to

charge Father, as the party asserting paternity, for the genetic

testing fees so long as Father was not a recipient of a federal

block grant or medical assistance program. Father did not argue,

before the agency or the family court, that he is a federal block

grant or medical assistance program recipient. The family court

did not err in affirming the agency order requiring that Father

pay genetic testing fees. See also HRS § 576E-2(10) (authorizing

CSEA to "[o]rder genetic testing . . . for the purpose of

establishing paternity, with payment of costs to be made by the

agency, subject to recoupment by the State from the father . . .

if paternity is established . . . [.]")

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the family court's March 23,

2018 orders in Appeal No. 1 and Appeal No. 2 affirming the

administrative findings and orders filed on December 9, 2016, are

affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 22, 2021.

On the briefs:

PO,

Self-represented PlaintiffAppellant-Appellant.

Tracie M. Kobayashi,

Deputy Attorney General,

for Appellee-Appellee Child

Support Enforcement Agency,

State of Hawai#i.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Presiding Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

9