Opinion ID: 6491035
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adult Protective Proceedings (FC-AA-96-0003)

Text: On June 14, 1996, the Department of Human Services, State of Hawaii (DHS), initiated an adult protective proceeding in the Family Court (docketed as FC-AA-96-0003) under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 346-223 (1993), 1 seeking protection for Kam, then aged 93. DHS sought protection based on allegations that Kam was being exploited by her then-attorney, Smith, arid his paralegal, Abastillas. Upon DHS’s ex parte motion, the Family Court entered an Order for Immediate Protection that same day. On August 27, 1996, the Family Court followed with an order in FC-AA-96-0003 appointing a guardian of Kam’s property. Smith and Abastillas appeared as parties to the proceedings. On September 9, 1996, the Family Court entered another order in FC-AA-96-0003 discharging the first guardian of Kam’s property and appointing two of her relatives as temporary co-guardians of her property. Smith and Abastillas again appeared and approved the order. Also that day, the parties reached an agreement to resolve the situation without trial, which was summarized as follows in the findings of fact entered by the Family Court on October 3, 1996 in FC-AA-96-0003: A. Paz Abastillas and Robert A. Smith are parties to this action; B. The Court appointed Patricia Blan-chette, M.D., as an Independent Medical Examiner, to examine Edith Ing Kam and report back to the court; C. Dr. Blanchette examined Edith Ing Kam on July 18, 1996 and rendered a report to the Court dated August 8, 1996; D. Edith Ing Kam does not consent to these proceedings; E. Edith Ing Kam is an incapacitated adult as evidenced by Dr. Patricia Blanchette’s report in that: 1. she suffers from Alzheimer’s Disease and suffers from dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type; [[Image here]] 3. she does not have the capacity to make reasoned decisions concerning her money and properties; and 4. she lacks the capacity to make and communicate decisions concerning her person; F. Edith Ing Kam is a “dependent adult” as defined in HRS Section 346-222; G. Pursuant to Section 346-228(1), Ha-wai'i Revised Statutes, [DHS] may resolve any ease “in an informal fashion as is appropriate ... [.] ” In this case, [DHS] has appropriately chosen to resolve this case in such an informal fashion. Therefore, findings as to abuse or threatened abuse are not required; H. The relief ordered in this case is in Mrs. Edith Kam’s best interest; I. At the Pretrial Conference held on September 9, 1996, the Court was informed that the parties had reached an agreement to settle this case by the entry [of] the Order Appointing Temporary Co-Guardians of the Property and Continuing Existing Orders, filed on September 9, 1996, on the understanding that, while parties [Kam, Smith, and Abastillas] would not sign approval as to form or substance, neither would they oppose the entry of the order or protest it once entered. The October 3, 1996 findings of fact appear to have been entered over the objection of Smith and Abastillas, 2 who argued that because the case was being settled by tacit consent rather than adjudicated, there were no grounds for entry of factual findings which might then have prejudicial preclusive effect in other pending or future litigation.