Opinion ID: 2514714
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proceedings Before the Family Court

Text: As succinctly summarized by the ICA: On September 23, 2005, [Mother], on behalf of [Minor], filed an ex parte petition for a [TRO] against Father under [HRS] § 586-3 (1993 & Supp.2004). Father allegedly had physically and psychologically abused [Minor] on and prior to August 25, 2005, by striking her during a heated argument about the [Minor's] assisting a friend in obtaining a birth control product. The [TRO], granted on September 23, 2005, had an expiration date of December 22, 2005. At a hearing on October 5, 2005, the [f]amily [c]ourt found the TRO was justified[ [4] ] and [ruled] that no further action was necessary. It its Order Regarding [TRO], filed the same day, the [family] court declared no further action would be taken and that the TRO would expire on its own on December 22, 2005. SDO at 1-2 (footnote omitted). Additionally, at the close of the hearing, Father's counsel argued that, pursuant to the parental justification defense, see supra note 2, the events that transpired between Father and Minor were not an abuse situation, but, instead, what we really have is a daughter who's you know, trying to find a way not to follow the rules, and a dad who is trying to enforce those rules. And the two things are just in conflict, and that's exactly when it is appropriate to use discipline. The family court, however, rejected Father's argument, orally ruling that what happened in this [case] was not parental discipline. On those grounds, this court is compelled to grant ... this restraining order. As you know, this [sic] will be no further action. [The c]ourt believes that the restraint was justified. On November 3, 2005, Father timely filed his notice of appeal from the family court's October 5, 2005 order. Thereafter, on March 3, 2006, the family courtat the request of Fatherentered its FOFs and COLs. Of particular relevance to the instant application are the following COLs: The material allegations of the petition have been proven. [Father] is the father of [Minor] and statutory blood relationship has been established. [Father] did physically harm, injure[] or assault[] [Minor] by striking her on August 25, 2005 and by threatening her with further physical harm. [Father] has raised parental discipline under [HRS § 701-309(a)]. However, that section applies to criminal not civil actions. Moreover, while it would appear that [Minor] was disciplined by [Father] for assisting her friend with obtaining a birth control product, discipline over issues of morals lies with [Mother], who has sole legal and physical custody. Assuming additionally that [Father] struck [Minor] because of her refusal to discuss this issue late during a school night, the court concludes that such an action is not proper parental discipline. The court, therefore, concludes that the allegations in support of the [TRO] have been prove[n] and that allowing the order to remain in full force and effect until the set expiration date of December 22, 2005 as requested by [Mother] is justified.