Opinion ID: 6494607
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: B.B.’s Constitutionally Protected Parental Rights

Text: In his answering brief, B.B. argues that HRS § 67146(a)(2) “is being utilized by [A.A.] to attempt to interfere with [B.B.’s] right to raise his child and protect his child from the conduct, belief, opinions, language, personality, and demeanor of [A.A.],” 10 In light of the remand of this case to the family court, we address B.B.’s constitutional challenge to HRS § 57146(a)(2), 11 B.B.’s constitutional argument raises questions regarding whether HRS § 57146(a)(2) unreasonably interferes with B.B.’s decision as a parent to no longer share custody with A,A. Accordingly, we consider whether Hawaii’s de facto custody provision—which uses a “best interests of the child standard”— unconstitutionally infringes on a person’s parental rights where the nonparent has had actual custody of the child in a stable and wholesome home, is a fit and proper person, the parent has voluntarily incorporated the nonparent into the family unit sharing parental responsibilities and duties, and the pairies subsequently shared custody pursuant to a written co-parenting agreement. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 5 of the Hawai'i Constitution provide that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1; Haw. Const, art. I, § 5. Under the Hawañ Constitution, we conduct a two-step inquiry in analyzing procedural due process claims. We first consider whether a liberty or property interest has been interfered with by the State, and second, we determine what specific procedures are required to satisfy due process. State v. Guidry, 105 Hawaii 222, 227, 96 P.3d 242, 247 (2004). Similarly, when the Due Process Clause “is invoked in a novel context,” the Supreme Court of the United States “beginfs] the inquiry with a determination of the precise nature of the private interest that is threatened by the State.” Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 256, 103 S.Ct. 2985, 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983); see Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) (noting that the court has required “ ‘a careful description’ of the asserted fundamental liberty interest” (quoting Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993))). It is only after that interest has been identified that the court can “properly evaluate the adequacy of the State’s process.” Lehr, 463 U.S. at 256, 103 S.Ct. 2985. Whether a parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in deciding that a person who has “de facto custody” of the child should no longer have custody is a matter of first impression in this jurisdiction. It has long been recognized that the due process clause protects certain liberty interests that parents have in maintaining relationships with their children and in directing their upbringing. See, e.g., Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). Independent of the United States Constitution, parents have a substantive liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of them children protected by the due process clause of article I, section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution and the right to privacy of article I, section 6 of the Hawaii Constitution. See Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawai'i 323, 334, 172 P.3d 1067, 1078 (2007) (“Parents’ right to raise their children is protected under article I, section 6 of the Hawaii Constitution....”); In re Doe, 99 Hawai'i 522, 533, 57 P.3d 447, 458 (2002) (“We affirm, independent of the federal constitution, that parents have a substantive liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children protected by the due process clause of article 1, section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution.”). Although due process jurisprudence recognizes a substantive liberty interest in directing the upbringing of one’s child without state interference, the right is largely undefined. In Troxel v. Granville, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Washington Supreme Court’s determination that a Washington visitation statute violated the United States Constitution. A majority of the Court agreed to affirm the Washington Supreme Court’s decision. The plurality opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, found that the Washington visitation statute was “breathtakingly broad” because its language effectively permitted “any third party seeking visitation to subject any decision by a parent concerning visitation of the parent’s children to state-court review.” 530 U.S. at 67-68, 120 S.Ct. 2054. The plurality opinion did not define the scope of the parental right at issue in that case, and one common thread that runs through nearly all of the six opinions written in the Troxel case is that the parental right with respect to visitation decisions remained undefined. See id. at 73, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (“We do not, and need not, define today the precise scope of the parental due process right in the visitation context.”); id. at 78, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Souter, J., concurring) (“Our cases, it is true, have not set out exact metes and bounds to the protected interest of a parent in the relationship with his child....”); id. at 88,120 S.Ct. 2054 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“While this Court has not yet had occasion to elucidate the nature of a child’s liberty interests in preserving established familial or family-like bonds, it seems to me extremely likely that, to the extent parents and families have fundamental liberty interests in preserving such intimate relationships, so, too, do children have these interests, and so, too, must their interests be balanced in the equation.” (citation omitted)); id. at 91-93, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (arguing that the constitution does not recognize the right of a parent to direct the upbringing of their children and indicating that he would not extend the theory of the cases recognizing any such right “to this new context”); id. at 100-01, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“In short, a fit parent’s right vis-á-vis a complete stranger is one thing; another parent or a de facto parent may be another. The protection the Constitution requires, then, must be elaborated with care, using discipline and instruction of the case law system.”). But see id. at (Thomas, J., dissenting) (arguing that “parents have a fundamental constitutional right to rear their children, including the right to determine who shall educate and socialize them”). Similarly, the scope of the parental right in the context of custody proceedings between a parent and a nonparent who has “de facto custody” of the child has not been defined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s cases regarding the interests of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children may be grouped into two categories: (1) eases involving a natural parent’s right to parent a child and maintain the parent-child relationship 12 and (2) eases involving state interference with a parent’s decision regarding the child. 13 This case does not call into question the potential termination of B.B.’s parental rights, but rather, it involves B.B.’s right to determine who has custody and access to Child. Because the Court did not define the parental right in Troxel, there are no Supreme Court opinions discussing circumstances analogous to this case. See supra notes 12-13. 14 In Doe, this court considered the constitutionality of a statute allowing for any grandparent residing in the same state of their grandchild to petition for visitation and allowing the court to grant the petition so long as it was in the best interests of the child. 15 116 Hawai'i at 326, 172 P.3d at 1069. Applying strict scrutiny, the court concluded that “proper recognition of parental autonomy in child-rearing decisions requires that the party petitioning for visitation demonstrate that the child will suffer significant harm in the absence of visitation before the family court may consider what degree of visitation is in the child’s best interests.” Id. at 336-36, 172 P.3d at 1079-80. Accordingly, the court held that the statute was facially unconstitutional because it did not include the “harm to the child” standard required by the right to privacy under the Hawai'i Constitution. 16 Id. at 336,172 P.3d at 1080. Thus, a parent’s fundamental right to direct the upbringing of his or her child was implicated “where a nonpar-ent third party petitioned] for visitation,” and the State could not interfere with the parent’s decision absent a finding that the parent’s decision to deny access to the child would result in harm to the child. Id. Subsequently, the ICA considered whether the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel in a custody proceeding infringed on a mother’s parental rights. See Inoue v. Inoue, 118 Hawai'i 86, 101, 185 P.3d 834, 849 (App.), cert. denied, 118 Hawai'i 194, 186 P.3d 629 (2008). In Inoue, the family court equitably estopped the biological mother of a child from denying that her husband was the father of her child for the purposes of determining custody. Id at 88, 185 P.3d at 836. The mother and her husband in Inoue met when she was pregnant with the child. Id. at 88-89, 185 P.3d at 836-37. The mother did not identify any father on the child’s original birth certificate, but at some point after the birth of the child, the child’s birth certificate was changed to reflect the husband as the child’s father. Id at 89, 185 P.3d at 837. The mother and husband were subsequently married, had two additional children, and lived together as a family until their separation seven years later. Id. The family court in Inoue awarded husband sole legal and physical custody of all three children, while granting mother visitation rights. Id at 91, 185 P.3d at 839. The mother appealed the family court’s decision to the ICA arguing that the family court could not award husband custody of the oldest child because he was not the child’s legal father and she was not unfit. Id. at 92,185 P.3d at 840. The ICA concluded that the family court did not err in holding that the husband was the legal father of the child under Hawai'i’s presumption of paternity statute and that the mother was estopped from challenging her husband’s parentage of the child. Id. at 94, 185 P.3d at 842. The ICA also considered whether the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel infringed on the mother’s parental rights under a plain error standard of review. Id. at 99-101, 185 P.3d at 847-49. The ICA concluded that the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not infringe on the mother’s liberty interests because she voluntarily rendered her parental rights with respect to the child “less exclusive and less exclusory” with regard to her husband. Id. at 101,185 P.3d at 849 (quoting Rubano v. DiCenzo, 759 A.2d 959, 976 (R.I. 2000)). The ICA reasoned, By marrying Egan and then adding his name to Child One’s birth certificate, Gina created the circumstances under which Egan became Child One’s “legal father.” By representing to him that he had adopted Child One when he allowed his name to be added to the certificate, Gina led Egan to take no action to further investigate or establish his status as Child One’s father. Finally, Gina allowed Egan to assume the role of Child One’s father and to become Child One’s psychological parent. Id. at 100-01, 185 P.3d at 848-49 (footnote omitted). Inoue relied on the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision in Rubano, which concerned two women who agreed to become the parents of a child. 759 A.2d at 961. They arranged for one of them to conceive via artificial insemination, and they raised the child together for four years while living together as a family in Massachusetts. Id. They gave the child both of their last names separated by a hyphen on the child’s birth certificate and sent out printed birth announcements identifying both of them as the child’s parents, although the parental status was never legally settled by adoption. Id. When the couple separated, the biological mother took the child with her to Rhode Island, and, initially, the biological mother agreed to a visitation schedule for her former partner to see the child. Id. at 961. Later, when the biological mother was resistant to the visitation arrangements, the former partner initiated legal proceedings seeking to establish her de facto parental status and obtain couid;-ordered visitation. Id. at 961-62. The parties negotiated a compromise that was embodied in a consent order, specifying that the former partner would have permanent visitation with the child on a periodic basis in exchange for waiving any claim to parent the child. Id. at 962. In later proceedings, the biological mother asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the consent order. Id. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island considered whether the biological mother had a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to terminate the relationship between her former partner and child. The Rhode Island court concluded that the biological mother rendered her own parental rights with respect to her child “less exclusive and less exclusory” than they otherwise would have been had she not “by word and deed” allowed her former partner to establish a parental bond with the child and also agreed to allow visitation. Id. at 976. The court reasoned that “the mere fact of biological parenthood, even when coupled with the biological parent’s ongoing care and nurture of the child and that parent’s fundamental right ..., does not always endow the biological parent with the absolute right to prevent all third parties from ever acquiring any parental rights vis-á-vis the child.” Id. The Inoue and Rubano decisions are consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s cases defining the parental liberty interest. Constitutionally protected parental rights are not based solely on legal or biological ties, and the Supreme Court has recognized “that the rights of the parents are a counterpart of the responsibilities they have assumed.” Lehr, 463 U.S. at 257, 103 S.Ct. 2985. Stated another way, “A parent’s rights with respect to her child have thus never been regarded as absolute, but rather are limited by the existence of an actual, developed relationship with a child, and are tied to the presence or absence of some embodiment of family.” Troxel, 530 U.S. at 88, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The Supreme Court has recognized that “ ‘[t]he importance of the familial relationship, to the individuals involved and to the society, stems from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association, and from the role it plays in ‘promoting] a way of life’ through the instruction of children as well as from the fact of blood relationship.’ ” Lehr, 463 U.S. at 261,103 S.Ct. 2985 (second alteration in original) (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 844, 97 S.Ct. 2094, 53 L.Ed.2d 14 (1977)); see also Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978) (holding that “best interests of the child standard” did not violate a natural father’s parental rights in adoption proceedings that terminated his parental rights where natural father did not marry the mother and had not at any time sought actual or legal custody of his child). The scope of parental rights is also defined in reference to the State’s authority and duty to protect children in addition to the rights of children. See Troxel, 530 U.S. at 88, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (observing that limitations on parental rights “have arisen, not simply out of the definition of parenthood itself, but because of [the Supreme Court’s] assumption that a parent’s interests in a child must be balanced against the State’s long-recognized interests as parens patriae and, critically, the child's own complementary interest in preserving relationships that serve her welfare and protection” (citations omitted)). Indeed, with regard to the Troxel decision, a majority of the court contemplated that even where the parent has a developed, legal parent-child relationship with the child, there may be special factors that justify state interference. See Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68, 73, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (plurality) (declining to define the precise scope of the parental due process right, relying instead on the “sweeping breadth” of the statute and application of “broad, unlimited power,” and noting the absence of “special factors that might justify the State’s interference”); id. at 89, 120 S.Ct. 2064 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“The constitutional protection against arbitrary state interference with parental rights should not be extended to prevent the States from protecting children against the arbitrary exercise of parental authority that is not in fact motivated by an interest in the welfare of the child.”); id. at 99, 120 S.Ct. 2064 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“In the design and elaboration of their visitation laws, States may be entitled to consider that certain relationships are such that to avoid the risk of harm, a best interests standard can be employed by their domestic relations courts in some circumstances.”); cf. id. at 92, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (stating that he would not extend the theory of parental rights to extend to visitation decisions). Relying on the plurality in Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989), the Rhode Island Supreme Court noted that “under certain circumstances, even the existence of a developed biological parent-child relationship ... will not prevent others from acquiring parental rights vis-á-vis the child.” Rubano, 759 A.2d at 974; see also Troxel, 530 U.S. at 87-88, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (discussing Michael H.). Indeed, as Justice Kennedy stated in his dissenting opinion in Troxel, “Cases are sure to arise—perhaps a substantial number of cases—in which a third party, by acting in a caregiving role over a significant period of time, has developed a relationship with a child which is not necessarily subject to absolute parental veto.” 530 U.S. at 98, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citing Michael H., Quillon, and Lehr); see also id at 64, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (plurality) (“[PJersons outside the nuclear family are called upon with increasing frequency to assist in the everyday tasks of child rearing.”). Accordingly, “a fit parent’s right vis-á-vis a complete stranger is one thing; her right vis-á-vis another parent or a de facto parent may be another.” Id. at 100-101, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). In this case, the parties made a joint decision to adopt and raise Child. Together, the parties named Child, giving her each of their last names, and they lived together with B.B.’s teenage son as a family unit for a two-year period. From the time she could talk, Child referred to B.B. as “Papa” and A,A. as “Daddy,” and they jointly shared all parental care, duties, and responsibilities for Child from the time she was one month old. Although A.A. and B.B. intended that A.A. would adopt Child and retained an attorney to accomplish the adoption, the adoption never occurred. Additionally, following their separation, the parties continued to attend counseling together and entered into a 50/50 written co-parenting agreement. Accordingly, it appears from the family court’s findings that B.B. voluntarily incorporated A.A. into the family unit and encouraged him to share parental responsibilities and custody of Child. As the mother in Inoue facilitated the “circumstances under which [her husband] became [her oldest child’s] ‘legal father,’ ” B.B. voluntarily shared custody of Child with A.A. and, thus, made his own parental rights less exclusive vis-á-vis A.A. See Inoue, 118 Hawai'i at 101, 185 P.3d at 849; see also 530 U.S. at 98, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“[A] fit parent’s right vis-á-vis a complete stranger is one thing; her right vis-á-vis another parent or a de facto parent may be another.”). 17 The circumstances of this case are entirely distinguishable from those governed by the grandparent visitation statute considered in Doe. See 116 Hawaii at 325, 172 P.3d at 1069. In this case, B.B. voluntarily allowed A.A. to share physical custody of Child in addition to sharing the duties and responsibilities for parenting child, and thus the circumstances do not implicate the Hawaii Constitution’s right to privacy as the grandparent statute in Doe did. 18 Additionally, we cannot conclude that B.B. has established the statute is facially unconstitutional. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (“A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”). The de facto custody provision of HRS § 571-46(a)(2) simply does not have the broad sweep that the grandparent visitation statute in Doe had. Indeed, HRS § 571-46(a)(2) is one of several “standards, considerations, and procedures” that HRS § 571-46 provides for family courts tasked with handling custody and visitation disputes; it is but one tool in a court’s toolbox for navigating the varying and complex circumstances that may arise when custody to a child is in dispute. Additionally, HRS § 571-46 includes subsection (a)(1), which provides custody should be awarded to either parent or to both parents according to the best interests of the child, and importantly, HRS § 571-46(a)(2) may also apply under circumstances where no parent or no fit parent seeks custody of the child. HRS § 571-46 is therefore notably distinguishable from the grandparent visitation statute in Doe. Indeed, the apparent purpose of the statute in Doe was to provide grandparents a means to circumvent the decisions of parents based on the legislature’s finding that “grandparents play a significant role in the lives of minor children and should be allowed reasonable visitation rights so long as it is in the best interests of the child.” Doe, 116 Hawai'i at 332 n.6, 172 P.3d at 1076 n.6 (quoting Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1053, in 1993 Senate Journal, at 1154). The grandparent visitation statute was facially invalid as it undermined a parent’s judgment to not allow grandparents access to one’s child based merely on a finding that grandparent visitation was in the child’s best interests. Id. (“Indeed, there can be no doubt that the legislature intended that visitation, if found by a court to be in the best interests of the child, may be ordered over a parent’s objection”); see Troxel, 530 U.S. 57, 67, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2061, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (“Kin practical effect, in the State of Washington a court can disregard and overturn any decision by a fit custodial parent concerning visitation whenever a third party affected by the decision files a visitation petition, based solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interests.”). While there certainly may be situations where a family court’s application of HRS § 571-46(a)(2) may violate a parent’s constitutionally protected liberty interests, we do not conclude that the statute is facially invalid as the grandparent visitation statute in Doe was. In distinguishing Inoue, the family court placed great emphasis on the fact that the parties never married or entered into a civil union. While it is true that the Inoue opinion discusses the fact that the parties were married in its analysis, it was important only because marriage was relevant to the paternity statute that was specifically challenged by the mother in Inoue. 19 See Inoue, 118 Hawai'i at 94, 185 P.3d at 842. In that case, the biological mother’s husband and the child had a presumptive “parent child relationship” pursuant to HRS § 584-4(a)(3)(B) because of the subsequent marriage of the parties and inclusion of husband on the birth certificate. Id. Thus, marriage was an essential element of the statute challenged by the mother in Inoue, and her voluntary creation of the circumstances giving rise to the presumptive parent-child relationship was important to the ICA, not the existence of a marriage itself. See id. at 100,185 P.3d at 848. Indeed, Inoue found the reasoning of the Rubano case persuasive, see id. although the parties were not married and the relationship of the parties was not discussed as an essential fact. See Rubano, 759 A.2d at 976. The heart of the Rubano decision concerned the relationship of the parties with the child—not the relationship between the parties. See id. at 974. In any event, marriage is not an element of the de facto presumption of HRS § 571-46(a)(2), the provision on which A.A. bases his claim for joint custody of Child. 20 Therefore, because B.B. permitted A.A. to share physical custody of Child in addition to the parenting responsibilities and duties with regard to Child, B.B. does not have a protected privacy interest in excluding A.A. from Child’s life under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Hawai'i Constitution’s due process and privacy protections. As such, B.B. has not demonstrated that the application of HRS § 571-46(a)(2) under the circumstances of this case would implicate his parental rights protected under the federal or Hawai'i constitutions. Given B.B. has not established that HRS § 571-46(a)(2) impacted a protected liberty interest nor a privacy interest under the Hawai'i Constitution, the statute’s prima fa-cie de facto provision, which includes the best interests of the child standard, satisfies due process. See HRS § 571-46(a)(2). Indeed, HRS § 571-46(a)(2) provides B.B. with ample protections as he has not demonstrated the implication of a protected liberty interest. HRS § 571-46(a)(l) favors the awarding of custody to the child’s parents, providing that custody “should be awarded to either or both parents,” and it also provides for the maintenance of meaningful contact between the parent and child unless the parent “is unable to act in the best interest of the child.” HRS § 571-46(a)(2) states that custody “may” be awarded to a person who is not a parent “whenever the award serves the best interest of the child,” and it also creates a presumption in favor of awarding custody under limited circumstances to a person who has de facto custody. Accordingly, the de facto presumption, which is also subject to the best interests of the child standard, would only apply when the nonparent custodian is able to demonstrate that he or she (1) has had “de facto custody” of the child (2) in a stable and wholesome home and that (3) the custodian is a ñt and proper person. Given that no protected liberty interest is demonstrated by B.B., the statute satisfies due process as applied in this case. 21 B.B. has therefore not established that an award of custody to A.A, under HRS § 571-46(a)(2) would impair his parental rights under the federal or Hawai'i constitutions, 22