Title: In re Doe Children
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 23611
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: December 4, 2000

NO. 23611 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I IN THE INTEREST OF DOE CHILDREN: JOHN DOE Born on November 13, 1990 JOHN DOE Born on June 3, 1992 (NO. 23611 (FC-S NO. 97-04815)) ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE INTEREST OF JANE DOE Born May 20, 1993 (NO. 23612 (FC-S NO. 97-04816)) ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE INTEREST OF JOHN DOE Born December 8, 1994 (NO. 23613 (FC-S NO. 97-04817)) APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (FC-S NOS. 97-04815, 97-04816, & 97-04817) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon consideration of father-appellant's motion for reconsideration of the November 21, 2000 order dismissing appeal, the papers in support and the record, it appears that father- appellant's assertion that he orally joined in mother's motion for reconsideration and that the family court reconsidered the May 26, 2000 orders as to both mother and father is not supported 2 by the record before this court. Father-appellant has not provided this court with a transcript of the reconsideration hearing that may reflect more than what the record shows. Even if father-appellant orally joined in mother's motion for reconsideration, the joinder did not meet the requirements of HRS § 571-54 inasmuch as the joinder, made on June 26, 2000, was not effected within twenty days after entry of the May 26, 2000 orders and was not in the form of a written motion, sworn by the movant, setting forth the grounds on which reconsideration was requested. Even if the family court reconsidered the May 26, 2000 orders as to father-appellant, the reconsideration was not based on a motion for reconsideration meeting the requirements of HRS § 571-54 as to father-appellant and the May 26, 2000 orders were not reconsidered in the manner required by HRS § 571-54 as to father-appellant. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that father-appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 4, 2000. Lane Y. Takahashi for father-appellant on the motion