Court Opinion

ID: 9955546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 18:03:44.306193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:04.677680
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                    Electronically Filed
                                                    Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                    28-MAR-2024
                                                    07:48 AM
                                                    Dkt. 71 SO

                          NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                        OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

            IN THE INTEREST OF M.O., BORN ON 00/00/2014
                    AND H.F., BORN ON 00/00/2016

         APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                         (FC-S NO. 21-00019

                    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
 (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

           Appellant Mother (Mother) appeals from the Order

Terminating Parental Rights entered on September 27, 2023, in the

Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court) in FC-S No. 21-

00091 (TPR Order).1    The TPR Order terminated the parental rights

of Mother, and the respective fathers to M.O. and H.F. (together,

Children), awarded permanent custody of the Children to Appellee

Department of Human Services (DHS), and approved a permanent plan

with the goal of adoption for the Children by the current

Resource Caregiver (RCG).

     1
           The Honorable Brian A. Costa presided.
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          Mother contends that (1) the Family Court abused its

discretion when it took jurisdiction over DHS's petition when

there was no Chuukese interpreter present for Mother at the first

hearing, even though Mother is Micronesian and speaks Chuukese as

her first language, and that interpreter services provided during

later proceedings were inadequate.    Mother also contends that DHS

failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that:       (2)

DHS exerted reasonable efforts to reunite the Children with her;

(3) Mother is not willing and able to provide the Children with a
safe family home, and will not be willing and able to do so in

the reasonably foreseeable future, even with the assistance of a

service plan; and (4) DHS's permanent plan dated July 6, 2022, is

in the best interests of the Children.     Mother also challenges

certain aspects of the Family Court's November 9, 2023 Findings

of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOFs/COLs).     Mother contests FOFs

11, 13, 59, 63, 79-81, 89-99, 101, 106-110, 172, 176, 189, 191-

193, 203, 208-209, 213-215, and 217-218 as clearly erroneous and

COLs 13-18 as based on erroneous findings.

          Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Mother's

contentions as follows:

          (1)   Mother argues that the Family Court abused its

discretion by taking jurisdiction over DHS's petition at the

first return hearing because there was no Chuukese interpreter

for Mother at that hearing and interpreter services provided

during later proceedings were inadequate.

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

           On November 24, 2020, RCG filed a petition for

guardianship because Mother had left the Children in her care in

March 2020, and she had not heard from Mother since.      On February

1, 2021, DHS filed a petition for foster custody of M.O., born in

2014, and H.F., born in 2016, after being ordered to do so in

separate guardianship proceedings filed by RCG.

           The Family Court held a hearing on DHS's petition for

foster custody on February 3, 2021, but there was no proof of

service made on any of the parents.    The Family Court found that
there was reasonable cause to believe that continued emergency

foster care was necessary for the Children, appointed a guardian

ad litem for the Children, and scheduled a further return hearing

for May 24, 2021.

           Mother and the Father of H.F. (Father 2) appeared on

May 24, 2021, and both were appointed counsel.     The father of

M.O. (Father 1) was incarcerated in Arizona and had not been

served.   Father 2 stipulated to the award of foster custody of

H.F. to DHS and the service plan dated February 1, 2021.

However, the hearing was continued as to Mother to obtain a

Chuukese interpreter for her.

           On June 22, 2021, Mother appeared with court-appointed

counsel and a Chuukese interpreter, contested the petition for

foster custody and the Family Court scheduled trial for August 4,

2021.   After trial on August 4, 2021, and September 27, 2021, the

Family Court denied DHS's request for foster custody, ordered the

Children returned to Mother, but granted DHS family supervision

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

over the Children.   The Family Court scheduled a review hearing

for October 12, 2021.

          Mother argues she was prejudiced by the lack of an

interpreter at the initial hearing, which tainted the entire

proceedings.   Mother also contends that the interpreter services

provided during later proceedings were inadequate, and she was

required to share an interpreter at one hearing.

          Although an interpreter was not present at the first

return hearing at which Mother appeared, the Family Court
continued the hearing as to Mother to obtain an interpreter.

Mother does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion or error by

the Family Court.

          Mother is correct that at one hearing, on October 12,

2021, only one Chuukese interpreter was present even though she

and Father 1 were in attendance.       However, the October 12, 2021

hearing was Father 1's first appearance, and the Family Court

ordered the parties back for a further hearing on November 12,

2021, where two interpreters were present on November 12, 2021.

Mother fails to demonstrate prejudice or state that she objected

to being required to share an interpreter for that one hearing.

          The difficulties with interpreters that were pointed

out by Mother during later proceedings appear related to

challenges inherent in conducting the hearing through Zoom, which

arose from Mother having stated that it would be a financial

hardship to return in person for the trial.

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

          Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that

the Family Court did not abuse its discretion or deny Mother her

rights by failing to provide adequate Chuukese interpretation.

          (2)    Mother challenges FOF 213 and 214, which found

that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the Children with her

and gave her every opportunity to succeed in remedying the

problems in the home that subjected the Children to substantial

risk of harm.    Mother argues that Hawaii Revised Statutes § 587A-

27(c) (2018) requires the court to ensure that each term,
condition, and consequence of the service plan has been

thoroughly explained to, understood by, and agreed to by each

member of the child's family whom the authorized agency deems

necessary to the success of the service plan."     Mother contends

that there is no proof in the record that DHS translated the

service plan for her and that the findings that DHS made

reasonable efforts to reunite the Children with her and gave her

every opportunity to succeed are clearly erroneous.      Mother

points to a July 5, 2022 Safe Family Home Report, in which DHS

acknowledged that it understood DHS was required to "translate

the service plan into Chuukese and have Mother state that she

understands and then signs the plan OR have an interpreter

present and explain the service plan to [Mother] and then have

her sign."

          Although there is no service plan translated or signed

by Mother in the record, the record shows efforts were made by

DHS to translate for Mother what was required of her under the

service plans.    On October 20, 2021, DHS social worker Tracey

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

Zhang connected with an interpreter and Mother to explain the

service plan to Mother with the assistance of the interpreter.

When asked if she had any questions, Mother responded no.

          On January 10, 2022, DHS social worker Esera Esera,

with the assistance of an interpreter, discussed and explained

the Family Service Plan dated December 27, 2021.      The DHS social

worker also explained to Mother that she needed to be consistent

in calling DHS every Monday at 10:00 a.m. so that DHS could

arrange for an interpreter.    However, Mother phoned in on only

one Monday and missed calling in three Mondays after that.

          When Mother moved to Louisiana, DHS requested a Home

Study from Louisiana, and the individual assigned to the request

indicated that she would look into finding a Chuukese

interpreter.   Mother testified that she asked Tyler Behavioral

Health for an interpreter, but was denied one because they were

able to understand what she was saying.     Notwithstanding the lack

of an interpreter, Mother successfully completed 7 of 7 sessions

of the Family Skills Building Parenting Class in Louisiana, which

suggests that Mother was not prejudiced by the lack of an

interpreter in Louisiana.     In addition, at the permanency hearing

on June 7, 2023, the Family Court specifically went over with

Mother what was required of her under the service plan and added

in the requirement that Mother call DHS every Monday at 10:00

a.m., so that DHS could arrange for an interpreter to discuss the

case and progress.   On this record, Mother fails to demonstrate

that the failure to provide her an interpreter at every encounter

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

with her caused her prejudice or made the proceedings

fundamentally unfair.

          (3)   Mother challenges FOF 209 and COLs 13, 14 and 15,

which support the Family Court's determination that Mother,

Father 1 and Father 2 are not willing and able to provide a safe

family home for the Children now or in the reasonably foreseeable

future, even with the assistance of a service plan.      Mother's

contention lacks merit because the Children were in emergency

foster custody of DHS as of January 27, 2021, entered foster care
on March 28, 2021, spent only three months in Mother's care, from

September 27, 2021, through December 27, 2021, under CPS

supervision, and by the time trial concluded on September 12,

2023, Mother still had not completed the recommended substance

abuse treatment or non sex-offender therapy, which had been

recommended for her because M.O. reported being sexually abused

by male relatives, but Mother did not seek treatment for M.O.

Father 1 was still incarcerated, and Father 2 stipulated that he

was not able to provide a safe family home.

          In a substance abuse assessment of Mother dated July

27, 2021, completed by Hina Mauka, Mother admitted to previously

using methamphetamine, but claimed she stopped in August 2020,

when she moved to Louisiana with her boyfriend and their son,

leaving the Children in the care of her boyfriend's sister.

Mother also admitted past use of marijuana and alcohol, starting

at age 16.   Mother had four negative drug screens between July

27, 2021, and August 19, 2021, was a no-show for seven drug

screens between September 7, 2021 and November 3, 2021, which

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

were thus presumed positive, had a negative drug screen on

November 15, 2021, but tested positive for amphetamine and

methamphetamine on November 22, 2021.     Mother was a no show again

on December 2, 2021, and December 8, 2021, before having another

negative drug screen on December 20, 2021, but was a no show

again on January 31, 2022.    Mother had negative drug screens on

February 2, 2022, and February 8, 2022, but tested positive for

THC on February 28, 2022, and for amphetamine, methamphetamine

and THC on March 16, 2022.    On March 18, 2022, Hina Mauka

recommended a residential substance abuse treatment program and

random drug monitoring upon discharge.     However, Mother moved to

Seattle in March 2022, without completing services here.

           Mother said she would complete services in Seattle.

However, Mother was a no show for drug screens scheduled for

April 14, 2022, April 29, 2022, May 17, 2022, and June 17, 2022,

in Seattle.   She then moved to Louisiana, had another assessment

done for her by Tyler Behavioral Health Clinic on March 9, 2023,

completed only 2 of 16 recommended substance abuse services

sessions, tested positive for methamphetamines and marijuana on a

drug screen on March 17, 2023, and refused to submit to random

drug screens on March 10, 2023, May 1, 2023, May 4, 2023, and May

9, 2023.   Because Mother did not comply with substance abuse

services recommended for her by Tyler Behavioral Health Clinic,

the Louisana Department of Children and Family Services denied

DHS's request for a home study on whether it was feasible to

place the Children with Mother in Louisiana.

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

          The evidence of multiple positive drug screens and no

shows for drug screens, Mother's failure to complete drug

treatment in both Hawai#i and Louisiana, and the length of time

the Children have been in foster care, are substantial evidence

of Mother's inability to provide a safe home for the Children now

or in the reasonably foreseeable future, even with the assistance

of a service plan.

          (4)    Mother challenges the Family Court's determination

that the permanent plan is in the best interest of the Children,
and FOF 218 and COLs 16, 17 and 18, which support that

determination.   Mother argues that the permanent plan proposes

adoption by RCG but RCG lied when testifying, which calls into

question her suitability to parent.      Mother also argues that if

RCG adopts the Children, it would make visitation between the

Children and Mother more difficult.

          Although Mother argues RCG falsely testified she was the

only one caring for the Children, Mother does not point out where

in the record that testimony occurred.      The Family Court

specifically found in FOF 63P that RCG was credible when she

testified that she was not the only one caring for the Children

prior to the opening of the case even though RCG "was off on time

frames when she testified."    We decline to disturb the Family

Court's determination of the credibility of the witnesses and the

weight given to their testimony.       See, e.g., Stanford Carr Dev.

Corp. v. Unity House, Inc., 111 Hawai#i 286, 296-97, 141 P.3d 459,

469-70 (2006).

                                   9
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          There also was substantial evidence to support the

Family Court's determination that the Children's adoption by RCG

and her husband are in the best interest of the Children.            The

following FOFs are unchallenged by Mother:
                51. The Court summarized its in-camera meeting with [H.F.],
          which included [H.F.'s] wish to remain with her current resource
          caregiver - [RCG and husband].
                197. From December 27, 2021 to June 20, 2022, the children
          were placed [in] a general licensed home. Unfortunately, [H.F.] had
          disruptive behaviors, and demanded more attention than [the] [RCG]
          could provide.

                198. On June 20, 2022, the Children were placed back in the
          home of [RCG] who had filed the original petition for legal
          guardianship. The Children were already familiar with [RCG], and
          the Children appeared comfortable in her home with a sense of trust
          and security.

                202. [RCG] is familiar with the Children having been the
          Children's caregiver before this matter started when she petitioned
          for legal guardianship. [RCG] is married to [husband] and they are
          both committed to providing consistent and permanent care for the
          Children. The long-term stability of adoption by [them] is in the
          Children's best interest. Furthermore, [RCG] credibly testified
          that she is willing to maintain contact with Mother after adoption.

          Steven Choy, Ph.D., the Children's therapist since June

2021, testified that permanency for the Children is important

because the longer it takes to decide where children will live, it

significantly increases psychological problems, and Mother was

being very inconsistent in her contacts with the Children and

making changes necessary to reunify with the Children.           DHS

Supervisor Elizabeth Saga-Petai, also testified that Mother's

inconsistent parenting and frequent absences were negatively

affecting the Children, and the permanent plan, with the goal of

adoption, would provide the Children stability.         The Children's

GAL also was in favor of terminating parental rights so that the

Children could be adopted by RCG, because the children were in

foster care for over two years, had been with RCG continuously for

                                     10
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

over a year, and granting them permanency as quickly as possible

would be in their best interest.    The Family Court's findings and

conclusion that the goal of the permanent plan of eventual

adoption of the Children by RCG and her husband is in the best

interest of the Children, FOF 218 and COL 16, 17, and 18, are

supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

          Mother contests FOFs 11, 13, 59, 63, 79-81, 89-99, 101,

106-110, 172, 176, 189, 191-193, 203, 208-209, 213-215, 217-218,

as unsupported by the evidence, and challenges COLs 13-18 as based
on erroneous findings, but does not present argument beyond what

has already been discussed.    Based on our review of the record, we

conclude that the challenged FOFs and COLs, which present mixed

issues of fact and law, are supported by substantial evidence and

are not clearly erroneous.

          For these reasons, the Family Court's September 27, 2023

TPR Order is affirmed.

          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 28, 2024.

On the briefs:                          /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                        Acting Chief Judge
Crystal M. Asano,
Court-Appointed Counsel,                /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Mother-Appellant.                   Associate Judge

Gay M. Tanaka,                          /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Julio C. Herrera,                       Associate Judge
Patrick A. Pascual,
Ian T. Tsuda,
Deputy Attorneys General,
State of Hawai#i,
for Petitioner-Appellee.

                                   11