Court Opinion

ID: 9397227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 19:05:13.69157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:22.413636
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                   Electronically Filed
                                                   Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                   CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                   24-MAY-2023
                                                   08:06 AM
                                                   Dkt. 97 MO

                            NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                  IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                          OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

                           IN THE INTEREST OF AA

          APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                         (FC-S NO. 16-00249)

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
      (By:    Leonard, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Chan, JJ.)

             Respondent-Appellant Father appeals from the Family

Court of the First Circuit's June 24, 2022 order denying his

motion for reconsideration. 1        On appeal, Father alleges that the

family court violated his due process rights. 2           Based on the

      1   The Honorable Andrew T. Park presided.

      2  Father also contends that the family court committed structural error
by failing to appoint counsel for the unknown natural father. See In re JH,
152 Hawai‘i 373, 380, 526 P.3d 350, 357 (2023) (clarifying that the family
court may discharge court-appointed counsel when a parent inexcusably fails
to appear in court, stating that, absent a client, "what's an attorney to
do?"). Based on our decision in this case, we need not address this issue.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

discussion below, we affirm the family court's denial of

Father's motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction.

                          I.     BACKGROUND

A.   Termination Of Parental Rights

          In November 2016, Mother gave birth to AA and

requested he be placed in foster care.     Upon discharge from the

hospital, Petitioner-Appellee Department of Human Services (DHS)

placed AA with Intervenors-Appellees resource caregivers

(Caregivers).

          On December 7, 2016, DHS filed a petition for

temporary foster custody of AA and initiated the underlying case

(Underlying Case).   AA entered foster care in December 2016; AA

was less than a month old.     About a month later, the family

court appointed Court Appointed Special Advocates Program (CASA)

as AA's guardian ad litem.

          Mother failed to provide DHS with sufficient

information to identify or locate the then-unknown natural

father of AA.   As a result, the family court permitted service

upon unknown natural father by publication.     Following service

by publication, DHS moved to terminate Mother's and unknown

natural father's parental rights.

                                   2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

               On February 27, 2018, the family court terminated

Mother's and unknown natural father's parental rights.

B.       First Motion To Intervene And Appeal

               On October 23, 2018, DHS filed a motion for immediate

review, explaining that Father contacted DHS claiming to be AA's

biological father and that AA was in the process of being

adopted by Caregivers.       A genetic test confirmed that Father was

the biological father of AA.

               On February 11, 2019, Father moved to intervene

(Father's Motion to Intervene); AA was a little over two years

old. 3

               The family court granted the motion, but later set

aside that order because Father was still in default.             The

family court denied Father's motion to set aside the default,

and Father appealed.       This court explained that Father could not

proceed with a motion to intervene until his default was set

aside.       In re AA, 148 Hawai‘i 278, 472 P.3d 1123, No. CAAP-19-

0000711, 2020 WL 5796177 at *13 (App. Sept. 29, 2020) (mem.).

               On certiorari review, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court held

that the family court should have analyzed Father's motion to

intervene under Hawai‘i Family Court Rules (HFCR) Rule 24 without

requiring him first to set aside the default judgment, and

         Father's Motion to Intervene superseded a January 28, 2019 motion to
         3

intervene.

                                      3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

remanded the case for further proceedings.          In re AA, 150 Hawai‘i

270, 284-89, 500 P.3d 455, 469-74 (2021).          The supreme court,

however, upheld the family court's (1) service of Father via

publication and (2) denial of Father's request to set aside

default and termination of Father's parental rights by default.

150 Hawai‘i at 284-89, 500 P.3d at 469-74.

C.     Renewed Motion To Intervene

            On February 17, 2022, Father again moved to intervene

(Renewed Motion to Intervene); AA was a little over five years

old.

            Father argued that he met the standards set forth in

HFCR Rule 24(a)(2) for mandatory intervention and HFCR

Rule 24(b)(1) for permissive intervention.          Father relied on In

re Doe, 109 Hawai‘i 399, 126 P.3d 1086 (2006) and Hawaii Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 587A-33(d) (2018). 4

            On March 14, 2022, the family court heard and orally

denied Father's Renewed Motion to Intervene.

            On March 22, 2022, the family court granted AA's

adoption to Caregivers.

      4  HRS § 587A-33(d) provides: "A family member may be permitted
visitation with the child at the discretion of the permanent custodian. The
court may review the exercise of such discretion and may order that a family
member be permitted such visitation as is in the best interests of the
child."

                                      4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          On April 25, 2022, the family court entered the order

denying Father's Renewed Motion to Intervene.

          On April 27, 2022, the family court revoked DHS's

permanent custody and terminated its jurisdiction over the case

in light of AA's adoption.

          On May 5, 2022, Father moved for reconsideration of

the denial of his Renewed Motion to Intervene (Motion for

Reconsideration).

          On June 7, 2022, the family court denied Father's

Motion for Reconsideration explaining that it lacked

jurisdiction over the case, and even if it had jurisdiction,

Father presented no new argument:

                Having taken judicial notice of the records, file,
          and proceeding herein; having had the chance now in
          addition to the pleadings filed respectively by movant,
          CASA, and the [Caregivers] on May 5, 16th, and 25th; and
          now having had opportunity to hear and consider additional
          oral argument, for reasons contained in the two opposition
          memoranda filed by the CASA program and the [Caregivers],
          as joined by [DHS], the Court respectfully denies the
          motion for reconsideration filed by [Father].

                As an additional factor, as was pointed out in the
          CASA's memorandum, this Court did terminate its own
          jurisdiction of the case upon the granting of the adoption,
          which I suppose is the first hurdle. Even if this Court
          could have granted the reconsideration based on some
          vestigial or lingering jurisdiction that it had, the Court
          finds that there's no new argument or point of law
          presented in the reconsideration motion and that the Court
          did in fact correctly apply the law at the initial hearing
          on the motion filed by [Father] that . . . reconsideration
          was sought for, I should say.

On June 24, 2022, the family court entered the Order Denying the

Motion for Reconsideration.     Father timely appealed.

                                    5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                       II.   STANDARD OF REVIEW

          "It is axiomatic that mootness is an issue of subject

matter jurisdiction.   Whether a court possesses subject matter

jurisdiction is a question of law reviewable de novo."        Hamilton

ex rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai‘i 1, 4-5, 193 P.3d 839, 842-

43 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting

Kaho‘ohanohano v. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 117 Hawai‘i 262, 281, 178

P.3d 538, 557 (2008)).

          "When reviewing a case where the circuit court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court retains

jurisdiction, not on the merits, but for the purpose of

correcting the error in jurisdiction."         Kaaukai v. Cnty. of

Maui, 126 Hawai‘i 124, 267 P.3d 708, No. 29387, 2012 WL 149871 at

*5 (App. Jan. 18, 2012) (SDO) (brackets omitted) (quoting Koga

Eng'g & Constr., Inc. v. State, 122 Hawai‘i 60, 84, 222 P.3d 979,

1003 (2010)).

                             III. DISCUSSION

          In his points of error, Father focuses on the denial

of his Renewed Motion to Intervene (as opposed to the denial of

his Motion for Reconsideration), contending that the family

court violated his due process rights.     As he did below, Father

argues that he met the requirements for mandatory intervention

                                    6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

under HFCR Rule 24(a)(2) and permissive intervention under HFCR

Rule 24(b)(1).

           In his Renewed Motion to Intervene, Father requested

"an assessment of Father for reunification/visitation with the

minor child and notification to all interested parties in

preserving Father's rights in all cases."

           But reunification was not at issue.      By declining to

set aside Father's default and termination of parental rights by

default, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court's decision in In re AA

affirmed the family court's termination of Mother's and Father's

parental rights to AA and award of permanent custody of AA to

DHS.   See In re AA, 150 Hawai‘i at 285-86, 500 P.3d at 470-71.

In other words, In re AA ended Father's legal challenges to the

family court's termination of parental rights and cleared the

path for Caregivers to adopt AA.       HRS § 578-2(c)(1)(K) (2018)

(providing that an adoption may occur without the consent of

"[a] parent whose parental and custodial duties and rights have

been divested by an award of permanent custody pursuant to

section 587A-33").

           Father's remaining right was visitation with AA under

HRS § 587A-33(d).    But, for purposes of this appeal, even if

Father's Renewed Motion to Intervene met the requirements of

HFCR 24(a)(2) or (b)(1), AA's adoption about two months later

extinguished Father's residual interest in visitation.       In re

                                   7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Doe, 109 Hawai‘i at 410, 126 P.3d at 1097 (explaining that "such

[HRS § 587A-33(d)] rights and interests terminate on the

condition the children are adopted or reach the age of

eighteen").

            Thus, any challenge to the family court's denial of

Father's Renewed Motion to Intervene was rendered moot upon AA's

adoption.

            As for the denial of Father's Motion for

Reconsideration, AA's adoption 45 days earlier terminated the

family court's jurisdiction over the Underlying Case because AA

was no longer subject to harm.    HRS § 587A-5 (2018) (providing

that a family court has jurisdiction over any child found within

the State of Hawai‘i that "is subject to imminent harm, has been

harmed, or is subject to threatened harm by the acts or

omissions of the child's family"); HRS § 587A-4 (2018) (defining

family, in relevant part, as the legal parent of a child); HRS

§ 578-16(b) (2018) (providing in relevant part that "[t]he

former legal parent or parents of an adopted individual and any

other former legal kindred shall not be considered to be related

to the individual").    The family court recognized this and

entered an order terminating the Underlying Case on April 27,

2022.

                                  8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          Thus, the family court had no jurisdiction over

Father's May 5, 2022 Motion for Reconsideration.

                            IV. CONCLUSION

          Therefore, we affirm the family court's June 24, 2022

order denying Father's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of

jurisdiction.

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 24, 2023.

On the briefs:                        /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                      Presiding Judge
Georgia K. McMillan,
For Respondent-Appellant.             /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
                                      Associate Judge
Jonathan M. Fujiyama,
Julio C. Herrera,                     /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
Deputy Attorneys General,             Associate Judge
for Petitioner-Appellee.

Francis T. O'Brien,
for Intervenors-Appellees.

Shelby N. Ferrer,
for Court Appointed Special
Advocates Program.

                                  9