Court Opinion

ID: 9906000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 18:03:26.434618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:03.340732
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                   Electronically Filed
                                                   Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                   CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                   30-NOV-2023
                                                   07:53 AM
                                                   Dkt. 44 SO

                            NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                  IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                          OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

             IN THE MATTER OF THEODORE K. KAOHU JR.,
    aka Theodore Kawika Kaohu Jr., and Theodore Kawika Kaohu,
                   Responsible Parent-Appellant

           APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                (FC-M NO. 15-1-6670; CSEA NO. 10730786)

                        SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
           (By: Ginoza, C.J., and Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

          On April 12, 2022, self-represented Responsible Parent-
Appellant Theodore K. Kaohu Jr., aka Theodore Kawika Kaohu Jr.,
and Theodore Kawika Kaohu (Father), filed a Motion and Affidavit
for Post-Decree Relief (Motion for Post-Decree Relief) in the
Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court), seeking a
retroactive modification of his child support obligation.
Following a hearing on September 1, 2022, the Family Court denied
the motion.
          Father appeals from the "Order Dismissing [Father's]
Motion and Declaration for Post-Decree Relief, Filed On April 12,
2022" (Order), entered on September 14, 2022, by the Family
Court.1/    For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Order.

                               I.   Background

          The following background is drawn primarily from the
Family Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

     1/
             The Honorable Lesley N. Maloian presided.
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

(FOFs/COLs), entered on December 6, 2022.          Father does not
challenge the FOFs, which are therefore binding on appeal. See
In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i 522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002) (quoting
Poe v. Haw. Labor Rels. Bd., 97 Hawai#i 528, 536, 40 P.3d 930,
938 (2002)).
          For purposes of child support, Father is the
"responsible parent" of three children (the Children). See
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 576E-1 (2006) (definition of
"responsible parent"). He has been incarcerated since
December 3, 2011.
          On April 23, 2015, the Child Support Enforcement Agency
(CSEA) held an Administrative Child Support Hearing. Father, who
was incarcerated at Saguaro Correctional Center in Arizona,
appeared remotely by video. On June 17, 2015, CSEA reconvened
the Administrative Child Support Hearing, to which father was
transported to attend. On July 9, 2015, CSEA filed in the Family
Court the following documents issued by the Office of Child
Support Hearings, initiating case FC-M No. 15-1-6670: (1) the
Administrative Findings and Order (AFO 1); and (2) the Original
Income Withholding Order/Notice for Support (IWO).            Pursuant to
AFO 1, among other things: (A) Father was found to owe a duty of
support for the Children in the amount of $77.00 per child per
month, totaling $231 per month, commencing on April 1, 2015; (B)
"[m]inimal child support was ordered because of FATHER's
incarceration status"; and (C) no back child support was imposed.
The IWO ordered the withholding of Father's income in the
specified amount for child support. Father did not appeal from
AFO 1 or the IWO.
          On August 4, 2021, Father submitted a Request for
Modification Letter to CSEA, which was treated as a request for
modification of his child support obligation.2/ Father requested
that his support obligation be made $0.00 per month retroactive
to the first date of his incarceration on December 3, 2011.
          On January 5, 2022, CSEA held an Administrative Child
Support Hearing. Father, who remained incarcerated in Arizona,

      2/
            The Request for Modification Letter is described in FOFs 11 and
12, but is not part of the record on appeal.

                                      2
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

appeared remotely by video. On March 3, 2022, CSEA filed the
Administrative Findings and Order (AFO 2) in the Family Court.
Pursuant to AFO 2, the Hearing Officer found: (A) Father's
incarceration commenced on December 3, 2011 and his tentative
release date is December 3, 2031; (B) Father had no source of
income, property or assets for child support purposes; (C)
pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, Father's
presumptive child support obligation was $166 per month; (D)
Father's lengthy incarceration was an exceptional circumstance,
which warranted deviation of the presumptive child support
obligation of $166 per month; (E) effective January 1, 2022,
Father's child support obligation was reduced to $0.00 per month;
and (F) Father's request to modify child support retroactively to
December 3, 2011, was denied pursuant to Lindsey v. Lindsey, 6
Haw. App. 201, 716 P.2d 496 (1986). Father did not appeal from
AFO 2.
          On April 12, 2022, Father filed the Motion for Post-
Decree Relief. The Family Court construed the motion as
requesting: "1.) [a]n order to retroactively modify his child
support obligation to $0.00 back to the date of December 3, 2011,
the first date of his incarceration; [2].) [a]n order waiving
past due child support owed to the State of Hawai#i, in the
amount of $15,362, which began accruing on April 1, 2015,
pursuant to [AFO 1]; and 3.) an order awarding him an $1,800
stimulus payment, which was seized by CSEA and applied to
outstanding arrearages."
          On September 1, 2022, the Family Court held a hearing
on the Motion for Post-Decree Relief. Father appeared remotely
from Saguaro Correctional Center in Arizona. The record does not
include a transcript of the hearing; however, the uncontested
FOFs state in relevant part:

                31. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court
          denied FATHER'S Motion. The Court cited Lindsey v. Lindsey,
          6 Haw. App. 20[1], 716 P.2d 496 (1986), and denied FATHER's
          Motion to retroactively modify child support to $0.00 back
          to the date of his incarceration on December 3, 2011, to
          eliminate all child support arrearages in the amount of
          $15,362.

                                    3
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

                  32. The Court found FATHER was initially incarcerated
            on December 3, 2011, which is over ten (10) years from the
            filing date of FATHER's Motion on April 12, 2022, and the
            instant Appeal. Father was incarcerated prior to the
            commencement of his child support obligation on April 1,
            2015, and remained in custody as of September 1, 2022, the
            date of the hearing.
                  33. The Court also found FATHER's request to reduce
            his monthly child support payment to $0.00 was moot.
            Effective January 1, 2022, CSEA reduced FATHER's child
            support obligation to $0.00.
                  34. FATHER made no requests regarding his stimulus
            payment.

          On September 14, 2022, the Family Court entered the
Order. The Family Court concluded, among other things, that:
(1) it had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter
of the action; (2) Father's request to modify his child support
obligation prospectively to $0.00 was moot, given that AFO 2 set
Father's payment amount at $0.00 per month, commencing January 1,
2022; (3) Father's request to retroactively reduce his child
support obligation to $0.00 to December 3, 2011, was barred,
pursuant to Lindsey, 6 Haw. App. at 204, 716 P.2d at 499, which
ruled that "court-ordered child support payments may be modified
prospectively but not retroactively . . . , except pursuant to
Rule 60, Hawaii Family Court Rules [(HFCR)]"; and (4) none of the
grounds for relief identified in HFCR Rule 60 were alleged or
applicable in this case. The Family Court thus ruled that Father
was not entitled to a retroactive modification of his child
support obligation to the date of his incarceration on
December 3, 2011.

                              II.   Discussion

          On appeal, Father appears to contend that the Family
Court erred in denying his request to retroactively reduce his
child support obligation to $0.00 to the date of his
incarceration on December 3, 2011.3/ In response, CSEA argues

      3/
            Father's opening brief fails to comply with Hawai #i Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b) in numerous material respects. For
example, the opening brief generally fails to provide: (1) "record references
supporting each statement of fact or mention of court . . . proceedings" in
the statement of the case, as required by HRAP 28(b)(3); (2) a "concise
statement of the points of error set forth in separately numbered
                                                                  (continued...)

                                       4
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

that: (1) the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
decide the Motion for Post-Decree Relief because "Father failed
to follow the proscribed appeal process for review of an
administrative order"; and (2) the Family Court correctly denied
Father's request for retroactive modification of child support.
          We address CSEA's jurisdictional argument first, before
turning to Father's contention.

A.    The Family Court's Subject Matter Jurisdiction

          CSEA contends that the right to appeal a CSEA decision
is established by HRS § 576E-13,4/ Hawaii Administrative Rules
(HAR) § 5-34-24,5/ and HFCR Rule 72,6/ which provide that any

      3/
         (...continued)
paragraphs[,]" as required by HRAP 28(b)(4); (3) a statement of "where in the
record the alleged error[s] [were] objected to or the manner in which the
alleged error[s] [were] brought to the attention of the court," as required by
HRAP 28(b)(4); and (5) "citations to the . . . parts of the record relied on"
in the argument section, as required by HRAP 28(b)(7). In addition, the
argument section is conclusory and often difficult to discern. Nevertheless,
because we have "consistently adhered to the policy of affording litigants the
opportunity 'to have their cases heard on the merits, where possible[,]'" we
address Father's arguments to the extent they are discernible. Morgan v.
Planning Dep't, Cnty. of Kauai, 104 Hawai#i 173, 180-81, 86 P.3d 982, 989-90
(2004) (quoting O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai #i 383, 386, 885 P.2d
361, 364 (1994)).
      4/
            HRS § 576E-13 (2018) states, in relevant part:
                  (a) Any party, including the agency, who is aggrieved
            by a final decision and order in a contested case or by a
            preliminary ruling of the nature that deferral of review
            pending entry of a subsequent final decision would deprive
            appellant of adequate relief is entitled to judicial review
            under chapter 91.
                  (b) Proceedings for review shall be instituted in the
            family court of the circuit where the final decision and
            order was filed within thirty days after the preliminary
            ruling or within thirty days after service of the certified
            copy of the final decision and order of the hearings officer
            or agency. The filing of a notice of appeal shall not stay
            enforcement of the administrative order.
      5/
            HAR § 5-34-24 (2001) states:

                  (a) Any party aggrieved by an administrative order is
            entitled to judicial review in conformance with sections
            91-14 and 576E-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes.

                  (b) The parties on appeal shall follow applicable
            rules of the family courts and appellate procedure.

                  (c) The thirty-day period for filing a notice of
            appeal with the family court may be extended for good cause
                                                                (continued...)

                                       5
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

person aggrieved by a final decision and order in a contested
case, or a preliminary ruling as specified in HRS § 576E-13, may
request judicial review by filing a notice of appeal in the
Family Court within 30 days after the preliminary ruling or after
service of the certified copy of the final decision and order.
CSEA argues that because Father failed to file a notice of appeal
from AFO 2 within the required time period, "the Family Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Father's Motion[,]
which was in substance requesting an appeal of [AFO 2]."
          CSEA's argument disregards HRS § 571-14 (2018).
Section 571-14(a) states, in relevant part:

             [T]he [family] court shall have exclusive original
             jurisdiction:

                   . . . .
                   (6)   In all proceedings for support between parent
                         and child or between husband and wife[.]

                   . . . .
                   In any case within paragraph . . . (6), the attorney
             general, through the child support enforcement agency, may
             exercise concurrent jurisdiction as provided in chapter
             576E.

             In turn, HRS § 576E-3 (2018) states, in pertinent part:

                   Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the
             attorney general, through the [CSEA], shall have concurrent
             jurisdiction with the [family] court] over:

                   (1)   Any person found within the State of Hawaii
                         against whom a child support obligation may be
                         established, modified, suspended, terminated, or
                         enforced; and
                   (2)   Any person without the State who has maintained
                         a domicile in this State while involved in a
                         marital or family relationship out of which
                         arises a claim for child support, including any
                         person against whom a Hawaii court or agency has
                         entered a support order.

      5/
           (...continued)
              shown upon written motion or request submitted to the
              administrator within the thirty-day period.
      6/
            HFCR Rule 72(a) states, in relevant part: "Where a right of
appeal to the family court is allowed by statute, any person or party allowed
by statute may appeal from such decision, order or action by filing a notice
of appeal in the family court having jurisdiction of the matter."

                                        6
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

See Child Support Enf't Agency v. Roe, 96 Hawai#i 1, 12, 25 P.3d
60, 71 (2001) ("HRS § 576E–3 . . . gives 'the attorney general,
through the CSEA, concurrent jurisdiction with the court' to
enforce child support obligations." (brackets omitted)); Black's
Law Dictionary 1017 (11th ed. 2019) (defining "concurrent
jurisdiction" in part as "[j]urisdiction that might be exercised
simultaneously by more than one court over the same subject
matter and within the same territory . . . .").
          Here, Father filed the Motion for Post-Decree Relief in
Family Court case FC-M No. 15-1-6670, seeking a retroactive
modification of his child support obligation. The Family Court
had subject matter jurisdiction over the motion pursuant to HRS
§ 571-14(a), as part of a "proceeding[] for support between
parent and child or between husband and wife[.]" The CSEA's
jurisdictional argument is therefore without merit.

B.   Modification of Child Support

           In his opening brief, Father argues that his child
support obligation "should have been set at zero dollars from the
beginning of his incarceration" under HAR § 5-31-23; during his
incarceration, he "was not informed," pursuant to HRS § 576D-
6(11), of his "right to request the agency to review, and if
appropriate,[ ]adjust the order of support pursuant to the
guidelines established under HRS § 576D-7"; "it was appropriate
to use HRS and adjust the order because of [Father's]
INCARCERATION"; "[Father's] poverty level does NOT fit the
criteria to meet monthly [c]hild support payments"; and "[he]
never received any notice from CSEA about any child support
payments." Father also asserts that the Family Court should have
granted his request "[to] have CSEA's administration pay back to
[Father] his $1,800.00 [stimulus], and some change which they
took from IRS."
           Generally, if a party does not raise an argument at the
trial level, that argument will be deemed to have been waived on
appeal. See Cnty. of Hawai#i v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd., 119
Hawai#i 352, 373, 198 P.3d 615, 636 (2008) (quoting State v.
Moses, 102 Hawai#i 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003)); see HRAP

                                  7
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

28(b)(4)(iii). Here, Father's opening brief fails to state where
in the record each of his current arguments was brought to the
attention of the Family Court, as required by HRAP 28(b)(4). In
addition, Father did not provide this court with a transcript of
the September 1, 2022 hearing on the Motion for Post-Decree
Relief. See HRAP Rule 11(a) ("It is the responsibility of each
appellant to provide a record . . . that is sufficient to review
the points asserted and to pursue appropriate proceedings in the
court or agency appealed from to correct any omission.");
Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553,
558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show
error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has
the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript."
(brackets omitted) (quoting Union Bldg. Materials Corp. v. The
Kakaako Corp., 5 Haw. App. 146, 151, 682 P.2d 82, 87 (1984))).
We are thus left to glean Father's arguments below from the
Motion for Post-Decree Relief itself and the Family Court's
description of the September 1, 2022 hearing on the motion.7/
These sources do not reflect Father's current arguments that he
did not receive proper notice of his child support obligation or
his right to request CSEA review of related orders. These
arguments are thus deemed waived.
          The Motion for Post-Decree Relief does reflect,
however, that Father requested "an order to cancel all debt of
[a] non-custodial parent who is currently incarcerated"
(formatting altered) and to be paid "back [his] $1800.00 stimulus
. . . ." The Family Court also fairly construed Father's
requests as seeking an order to retroactively modify his child
support obligation to $0.00 back to the date of December 3, 2011,
the first date of his incarceration.
          It is well settled that court-ordered child support
payments may be modified prospectively but not retroactively,

      7/
            It appears that Father also filed a request to appear remotely for
a June 23, 2022 hearing on the Motion for Post-Decree Relief (later continued
to September 1, 2022), which was received by the Family Court on May 23, 2022,
and approved. In the request, Father also asserts that "[t]he Child support
guidelines were improperly utilized" and appears to rely on "[HRS] § 576D-
7(1), (7) Balancing the Standard of living of both parents."

                                      8
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

except pursuant to HFCR Rule 60. See HRS § 576E-14(b); Lindsey,
6 Haw. App. at 204, 716 P.2d at 499 (citing Smith v. Smith, 3
Haw. App. 170, 647 P.2d 722 (1982)); Smith, 3 Haw. App. at 174,
647 P.2d at 725 (applying HRS § 580-47(d)); see Bantolina v.
Bantolina, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2016 WL 4555870, at *4 (Haw. App.
Aug. 31, 2016) (mem.) (applying Lindsey). Under HFCR Rule 60(b),
"[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may
relieve a party or a party's legal representative from any or all
of the provisions of a final judgment, order, or proceeding" for
a variety of reasons. Any such motion "shall be made within a
reasonable time[.]" HFCR Rule 60(b).
          Here, the Family Court did not err in concluding that
Father's request to retroactively reduce his child support
obligation to $0.00 back to December 3, 2011, was legally
barred.8/ Moreover, Father did not invoke HFCR Rule 60(b) in the
Motion for Post-Decree Relief or, based on the record before this
court, during the September 1, 2022 hearing on the motion. And,
on appeal, Father does not contend that the Motion for Post-
Decree Relief established any of the bases for relief set forth
in HFCR Rule 60(b) or that the Family Court erred in failing to
treat the motion as an HFCR Rule 60(b) motion.9/ See HRAP Rule
28(b)(4), (7). Because none of the grounds for relief under HFCR
Rule 60 were alleged or established in this case, Father was not
entitled to relief under the rule, and the Family Court did not
err in so ruling. See In re RBG, 123 Hawai#i at 27-30, 229 P.3d
at 1092-95 (ruling that mother failed to establish basis for
relief under HFCR Rule 60(b)(6)).

      8/
            Accordingly, the Family Court did not err in denying Father's
request to have the CSEA "pay back" the $1,800.00 stimulus amount, which
appears to have been based on Father's request to have his child support
obligation retroactively reduced to $0.00. The record does not indicate that
Father's other arguments on appeal were raised below and thus they are deemed
waived.
      9/
            Relief pursuant to HFCR Rule 60(b)(6), for example, is
extraordinary, and the movant must show that: (1) the motion is based on some
reason other than those specifically stated in clauses 60(b)(1) through (5);
(2) the reason is such to justify the relief; and (3) the motion is made
within a reasonable time. Hayashi v. Hayashi, 4 Haw. App. 286, 290, 666 P.2d
171, 174 (1983) (citing 7 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 60.27[3] (2d ed. 1982));
In re RBG, 123 Hawai#i 1, 19, 229 P.3d 1066, 1084 (2010) (quoting Hayashi).

                                      9
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

                          III.   Conclusion

          For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the "Order
Dismissing [Father's] Motion and Declaration for Post-Decree
Relief, Filed On April 12, 2022," entered on September 14, 2022,
by the Family Court of the First Circuit.

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 30, 2023.

On the briefs:
                                       /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Theodore K. Kaohu Jr.                  Chief Judge
Self-represented Responsible
Parent-Appellant.
                                       /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Mark T. Nugent,                        Associate Judge
Deputy Attorney General,
for Child Support Enforcement
Agency-Appellee.                       /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
                                       Associate Judge

                                  10