Court Opinion

ID: 9400908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 18:08:11.773492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.847806
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                 Electronically Filed
                                                 Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                 CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                 09-JUN-2023
                                                 07:53 AM
                                                 Dkt. 104 SO

                NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                  (Consolidated under CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)

                  IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

                             CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                      IN THE INTEREST OF NF and AF

           APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                          (FC-S NO. 17-00211)

                                    and
                             CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                          IN THE INTEREST OF HG

           APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                          (FC-S NO. 20-00192)

                        SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
         (By:   Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

          In these consolidated appeals Respondent-Appellant
Father appeals from the: (1) Order Terminating Parental Rights
over NF and AF (the Twins) entered by the Family Court of the
First Circuit on August 1, 2022, in FC-S No. 17-00211 (the First
Case), and; (2) Order Terminating Parental Rights over HF1
entered by the family court on August 1, 2022, in FC-S

     1
            When the Petition for Temporary Foster Custody was filed in FC-S
No. 20-00192, HF was identified as HG. The caption was amended when the
family court received the birth certificate. HF's birth certificate does not
identify a father.
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

No. 20-00192 (the Second Case).2          Father is the natural and legal
father of the Twins,3 and the alleged natural father of HF
(collectively, Children).4 For the reasons explained below, we
affirm.
          Mother gave birth to Children's biological sister, EF,
in 2016. On July 29, 2016, Petitioner-Appellee Department of
Human Services (DHS) received a report of threat of abuse and
threatened neglect of EF. DHS didn't immediately file a petition
for foster custody because Mother and Father (Parents) agreed to
participate in Intensive Home-Based Services (IHBS); live with
paternal grandmother; attend all medical appointments for
themselves and for EF; and maintain contact with an IHBS case
worker. Parents stopped participating in IHBS after two weeks
and left paternal grandmother's residence with EF. DHS then
confirmed a threat of abuse to and neglect of EF and filed a
petition for temporary foster custody upon location, which the
family court granted on August 31, 2016. EF died on September 1,
2016, before she could be located. An autopsy and investigation
were conducted, but the cause and manner of EF's death were
undetermined.
          The Twins were born in 2017. DHS filed a petition for
temporary foster custody of the Twins soon after their birth.
The family court granted the petition. The Twins' date of entry
into foster care was November 28, 2017. Father appealed. We
affirmed. In re NF and AF, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 6830828
(Haw. App. Dec. 13, 2019) (SDO). The supreme court rejected
Father's application for writ of certiorari. In re NF and AF,
No. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2020 WL 1675713 (Haw. Apr. 6, 2020).

      2
            The Honorable Andrew T. Park presided over both cases.
      3
            See In re NF and AF, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 6830828, at *1
(Haw. App. Dec. 13, 2019) (SDO), cert. rejected, No. SCWC-18-000948, 2020 WL
1675713 (Haw. Apr. 6, 2020).
      4
            Children's mother (Mother) has not appealed from the orders.

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

          HF was born in 2020. DHS filed a petition for
temporary foster custody of HF soon after her birth. The family
court granted the petition. HF's date of entry into foster care
was January 8, 2021.
          DHS then filed petitions to terminate Parents' parental
rights as to all the Children. The family court conducted a
hearing on April 28, May 23, and July 18, 2022. Mother did not
appear at the hearing. Father attended the April 28 and July 18,
2022 hearings and testified on his own behalf. The family court
entered orders terminating parental rights on August 1, 2022.
These appeals by Father followed.
          Relevant to these appeals, Hawaii Revised Statutes
(HRS) § 587A-33 "provides that the family court shall terminate a
parent's parental rights if it finds [by clear and convincing
evidence] that: (1) the parent is not able to provide a safe
family home for the child now or within a reasonable period of
time; [and] (2) the proposed permanent plan is in the best
interests of the child[.]" In re R Child., 145 Hawai#i 477, 483,
454 P.3d 418, 424 (2019) (statutory citations omitted).

          Generally, the family court possesses wide discretion in
          making its decisions and those decision[s] will not be set
          aside unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion. Thus,
          we will not disturb the family court's decisions on appeal
          unless the family court disregarded rules or principles of
          law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party
          litigant and its decision clearly exceeded the bounds of
          reason.

Id. at 482, 454 P.3d at 423 (citation omitted).
          Father's opening brief does not comply with Rule 11 of
the Rules Expediting Child Protective Appeals. However, we
attempt to decide cases on the merits, where possible. O'Connor
v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai#i 383, 386, 885 P.2d 361, 364
(1994). Accordingly, we address what we discern to be Father's
arguments on appeal.
          Father challenges a number of the family court's
findings of fact, and argues that the family court erred by
considering the circumstances of EF's death. The label of a

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

finding of fact (FOF) or a conclusion of law (COL) does not
determine the standard of review.   See Crosby v. State Dep't of
Budget & Fin., 76 Hawai#i 332, 340, 876 P.2d 1300, 1308 (1994).
The question whether a determination is an FOF or a COL is a
question of law. Thus, the accuracy of the label affixed by the
family court is freely reviewable by a reviewing court. Kilauea
Neighborhood Ass'n v. Land Use Comm'n, 7 Haw. App. 227, 229, 751
P.2d 1031, 1034 (1988) (citation omitted).

          The family court's determinations with respect to
          (1) whether a child's parent is willing and able to provide
          a safe family home for the child and (2) whether it is
          reasonably foreseeable that a child's parent will become
          willing and able to provide a safe family home within a
          reasonable period of time present mixed questions of law and
          fact; thus, inasmuch as the family court's determinations in
          this regard are dependant upon the facts and circumstances
          of each case, they are reviewed on appeal under the clearly
          erroneous standard. Likewise, the family court's
          determination of what is or is not in a child's best
          interests is reviewed on appeal for clear error.

          Moreover, the family court is given much leeway in its
          examination of the reports concerning a child's care,
          custody, and welfare, and its conclusions in this regard, if
          supported by the record and not clearly erroneous, must
          stand on appeal.

In re JM, 150 Hawai#i 125, 137, 497 P.3d 140, 152 (App. 2021)
(cleaned up) (quoting In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i 183, 190, 20 P.3d
616, 623 (2001)).
          In the First Case, Father challenges the following
determinations by the family court:

                65. The facts of [EF]'s case are relevant to the DHS
          assessment of harm in this case because the death of a
          sibling due to abuse/neglect or under uncertain
          circumstances is a safety factor that is considered by the
          DHS in its assessment of whether harm or threatened harm is
          still present in the current safety assessment.
                66. The facts and circumstances of [EF]'s death are
          relevant to the issues before the Court in this contested
          TPR trial. In deciding whether the Child[ren] are subject
          to harm or threatened harm by the acts or omissions of the
          Parents, and whether the Parents can provide a safe home for
          the Child[ren] even with the assistance of a service plan,
          the Court notes that most, if not all, of the same safety
          issues that were present when [EF] died were also present
          during the current DHS management, and that these safety
          issues remained unresolved.

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

              . . . .
              77. The circumstances surrounding [EF]'s death are
        evidence of the reasonably foreseeable substantial risk of
        harm to the Children posed by the Parents in this case.
                    a. On the day of [EF]'s death, Father contacted
        the Department of the Medical Examiner directly to report
        that he had found his daughter unresponsive early that
        morning in her bassinet in a van in which they had been
        living. The Parents did not contact emergency services or
        police and instead placed the baby in a car seat in a
        different vehicle and drove around with the body for several
        hours before reporting the death. [EF]'s body was received
        approximately 18 hours after discovery and [EF] was
        officially pronounced dead at 9:00 p.m. on September 1,
        2016.
                    b. The Parents' behavior after [EF] was
        discovered unresponsive is evidence of threatened harm to
        the Children in this case: A reasonably safe and prudent
        parent would have immediately called 9-1-1 upon discovering
        their newborn child unresponsive. Neither Mother nor Father
        called 9-1-1 at any point after the discovery. This
        evidence is not limited to threatened harm; it also goes to
        safety of the family home and the appropriateness of the
        service plan.
                    c. After discovering that [EF] was
        unresponsive, Father performed CPR and massaged [EF]'s
        chest. Father felt that [EF]'s body "still had some heat at
        2:30 a.m." but there was "no heat at 2:50 a.m." so he
        assumed that she was dead.

                    d. Mother was aware of [EF]'s condition from
        the time of discovery, and there is no evidence that she
        attempted to contact emergency responders or that she
        otherwise attempted to obtain immediate assistance.

                    e. Before presenting themselves at the medical
        examiner's office, the Parents drove around with [EF]'s body
        in the car and did "errands" which included withdrawing
        money from an ATM; waiting at a car repair shop for 2.5
        hours until the shop opened; going to Wal-Mart to obtain
        phone cards; and going to Carl's Jr. for breakfast.

              . . . .
              86. Houselessness alone is not a safety concern, so a
        physical, residential address is not required. Parents
        could live in a tent anywhere, provided that the living
        situation is assessed as safe. However, [EF] died while
        parents were houseless, which heightens the need for the DHS
        to assess the safety of parents' living arrangements.

              . . . .

              110. Father has been given the opportunity to engage
        in the services recommended by the DHS in services [sic]
        plans dated October 2, 2017, June 25, 2018, January 24,
        2019, October 15, 2019, March 24, 2020, October 12, 2020,

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

          December 14, 2020, October 1, 2021, and March 23, 2022. All
          the service plans were fair, appropriate, and comprehensive,
          and provide the steps necessary to facilitate the return of
          the Children to the family home.
                . . . .

                125. Father is not willing and able to provide the
          Children with a safe family home, even with the assistance
          of a service plan, nor is it reasonably foreseeable that he
          will become willing and able to provide a safe family home,
          even with the assistance of a service plan in the reasonably
          foreseeable future.
                . . . .

                127. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
          case, the DHS has exerted reasonable and active efforts to
          reunify the Children with Father by identifying necessary,
          appropriate, and reasonable services to address Father's
          identified safety issues, and making the appropriate and
          timely referrals for these services.

                128. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
          case, the DHS gave Father every opportunity to succeed in
          remedying the problems which subjected the Children to
          substantial risk of being harmed in the family home.

          In the Second Case, Father challenges the following
determinations by the family court:

                47. The facts of [EF]'s case are relevant to the DHS
          assessment of harm in this case because the death of a
          sibling due to abuse/neglect or under uncertain
          circumstances is a safety factor that is considered by the
          DHS in its assessment of whether harm or threatened harm is
          still present in the current safety assessment.
                48. The facts and circumstances of [EF]'s death are
          relevant to the issues before the Court in this contested
          TPR trial. In deciding whether the Child are [sic] subject
          to harm or threatened harm by the acts or omissions of the
          Parents, and whether the Parents can provide a safe home for
          the Child even with the assistance of a service plan, the
          Court notes that most, if not all, of the same safety issues
          that were present when [EF] died were also present during
          the current DHS case management, and that these safety
          issues remained unresolved.
                . . . .
                62. The Parents' behavior after [EF] was discovered
          unresponsive is evidence of threatened harm to the [Children
          in this case]: A reasonably safe and prudent parent would
          have immediately called 9-1-1 upon discovering their newborn
          child unresponsive. Neither Mother nor Father called 9-1-1
          at any point after the discovery.
                . . . .

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

                     114. Father is not willing and able to provide the
               Child with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a
               service plan, nor is it reasonably foreseeable that he will
               become willing and able to provide a safe family home, even
               with the assistance of a service plan in the reasonably
               foreseeable future.

                     . . . .
                     116. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
               case, the DHS has exerted reasonable and active efforts to
               reunify the Child with Father by identifying necessary,
               appropriate, and reasonable services to address Father's
               identified safety issues, and making the appropriate and
               timely referrals for these services.
                     117. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
               case, the DHS gave Father every opportunity to succeed in
               remedying the problems which subjected the Child to
               substantial risk of being harmed in the family home.

          The family court's combined findings and conclusions
were supported by substantial evidence in the record and
reflected a correct application of the law. See HRS § 587A-
7(a)(4)(D);5 In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i at 191, 20 P.3d at 624 ("the
family court may 'look to the past and present conditions of the
home and natural parents so as to gain insights into the quality
of care the child may reasonably be expected to receive in the
future'") (quoting Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85, 99, 637 P.2d
760, 769 (1981)). A number of unchallenged findings in the First
Case and the Second Case also detail the circumstances
surrounding EF's death.6 The family court did not abuse its

      5
               HRS § 587A-7 (2018) provides, in relevant part:

               (a)   The following factors shall be fully considered when
               determining whether a child's family is willing and able to
               provide the child with a safe family home:
                     . . . .

                     (4)   Facts regarding the alleged perpetrators of harm
                     to the child, . . . which facts shall include:
                           . . . .
                           (D) Prior involvement in services[.]
      6
               See FOF nos. 49-64 in the First Case and FOF nos. 31-46 in the
Second Case.

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

discretion by determining that the circumstances of EF's death
were relevant to DHS's assessment of harm and the contested
issues in the termination of Father's parental rights for
Children.
          Father argues that the family court erred by finding he
was not able to provide a safe family home for Children. The
family court's determination was supported by FOF no. 125 and
unchallenged FOF nos. 89-91 and 97-106 in the First Case, and by
FOF no. 114 and unchallenged FOF nos. 69-95 in the Second Case,
which detail Father's lack of housing and inability to supervise
the Children. The family court's determination that Father was
not able to provide a safe family home for Children was not
clearly erroneous.
          Father argues that DHS failed to provide him with a
reasonable opportunity to reunify with the Children. He fails to
cite where in the record the error allegedly occurred, or how it
was preserved for appeal. However, we note that FOF nos. 127-28
and unchallenged FOF nos. 88-89 in the First Case, and FOF
nos. 116-17 and unchallenged FOF nos. 74-75 in the Second Case,
detail the frequency of Parents' visits with Children and the
number and kinds of service plans offered to Father by DHS.7
Father does not contest FOF no. 110 in the First Case, or FOF
no. 99 in the Second Case, which determined that the service
plans offered by DHS were fair, appropriate, and comprehensive,
and provided steps that would be necessary to return the Children
to the family home.
          Father argues that the family court erred by finding
that his mental health history subjected the Twins to threatened
harm. However, Father does not contest FOF no. 76 in the First
Case and FOF no. 59 in the Second Case, which found that Children
were subject to threatened harm based upon Parents' histories of
mental health problems. Those unchallenged findings are binding

      7
            Services offered to Father included psychological evaluation and
mental health assessment, psychiatric treatment and recommendation, therapy,
parenting classes and education, and home-based outreach services.

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

on appeal. In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at 463. Father
also argues that the family court erred by finding that Parents'
act of leaving the Twins in the hospital threatened harm to the
twins. Father cites to no such finding, and we find none.
Father's argument lacks merit.
          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the "Order
Terminating Parental Rights" entered by the family court on
August 1, 2022, in FC-S No. 17-00211 and the "Order Terminating
Parental Rights" entered by the family court on August 1, 2022,
in FC-S No. 20-00192.
          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 9, 2023.

On the briefs:
                                      /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Herbert Y. Hamada,                    Chief Judge
for Respondent-Appellant.
                                      /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Stephanie W. Batzer,                  Associate Judge
for Court Appointed
Special Advocate Program.             /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
                                      Associate Judge
Gay M. Tanaka,
Julio C. Herrera,
Deputy Attorneys General,
Department of the Attorney
General,
State of Hawai#i,
for the Department of
Human Services.

                                  9