Court Opinion

ID: 9927314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 19:03:38.853748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:42.527846
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                           Electronically Filed
                                           Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                           CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                           26-JAN-2024
                                           08:13 AM
                                           Dkt. 61 OP

              IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                     OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

                            ---o0o---

                 IN THE INTEREST OF AG1 AND AG2

                       NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

        APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                        (FC-S NO. 22-0069)

                        JANUARY 26, 2024

      HIRAOKA, PRESIDING JUDGE, NAKASONE AND MCCULLEN, JJ.

               OPINION OF THE COURT BY HIRAOKA, J.

          This case concerns the Child Protective Act, Hawaii

Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 587A.    We must decide whether a

biological parent whose parental rights have been terminated

under HRS § 587A-33 must be summoned if another petition about

the child is later filed in the family court.    We hold that HRS

§ 587A-13 does not require that a parent whose parental rights

have been terminated be summoned if a subsequent petition

concerning the child is filed.
 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                               I. BACKGROUND

            Mother and Father (collectively, the Parents) are the

biological parents of AG1 and AG2 (Children).           Parents' parental

rights in Children were terminated on March 29, 2019.             The order

terminating Parents' parental rights stated:
            13    Pursuant to HRS § 587A-33(b)(5)[1] [Mother] and
                  [Father] are excluded from participating in adoption
                  or other subsequent proceedings and he/she/they shall
                  not be noticed of future hearings and he/she/they
                  shall not appear at future hearings unless he/she/they
                  receive further legal notice requiring such
                  appearance[.]

The state Department of Human Services (DHS) was granted

permanent custody of Children.        Children were placed with a

Guardian.

            On July 27, 2022 (after Parents' parental rights were

terminated), DHS filed a Petition for temporary foster custody of

AG1 and family supervision of AG2.         The Petition alleged that

Guardian had physically abused AG1.         DHS also reported threatened

abuse of AG2.    Guardian and Parents were summoned to appear

before the Family Court of the Third Circuit.           The Family Court

     1
            HRS § 587A-33 (2018) provides, in relevant part:

                  (b)   If the court determines that the criteria [for
            terminating parental rights] set forth in subsection (a) are
            established by clear and convincing evidence and the goal of
            the permanent plan is for the child to be adopted or remain
            in permanent custody, the court shall order:

                  . . . .

                  (5)   The entry of any other orders the court deems to
                        be in the best interests of the child, including
                        restricting or excluding unnecessary parties
                        from participating in adoption or other
                        subsequent proceedings.

                                      2
 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

appointed the Legal Aid Society of Hawai#i (LASH) to be

Children's guardian ad litem.

            On September 7, 2022, LASH moved to dismiss Parents or

exclude them from the proceeding.         The Family Court denied the

motion.2   LASH moved for reconsideration.          The Family Court

denied reconsideration and entered findings of fact and

conclusions of law.      The court concluded:
                  4.    Even though [Father]'s and [Mother]'s parental
            rights regarding the Subject Children were terminated . . .
            pursuant to HRS § 587A-33, they are nevertheless entitled to
            notice in this . . . case pursuant to HRS § 587A-13.

                  5.    Even though [Father]'s and [Mother]'s parental
            rights regarding the Subject Children were terminated . . .
            pursuant to HRS § 587A-33, they are nevertheless entitled to
            participate in this matter because each received a summons
            requiring their appearances, and each of them is a "parent"
            and "party" as those terms are defined in HRS § 587A-4.
                  6.     The statutory language and definitions set forth
            in HRS §§ 587A-4 and 587A-13 control as to whether [Father]
            and [Mother] are entitled to notice of and the right to
            participate as parties in this case. Accordingly, the Court
            declines to engage in any further analysis of the other
            arguments presented by [LASH], including whether the
            inclusion of [Father] and [Mother] as parties to this case
            is in the Subject Children's best interests under HRS
            § 571-46(b).

            The Family Court let LASH file this interlocutory

appeal.    LASH argues that the Family Court erred by denying the

motion to dismiss Parents or exclude them from the proceeding.

                          II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

            Interpretation of a statute is a question of law we

review de novo.     Barker v. Young, 153 Hawai#i 144, 148, 528 P.3d

217, 221 (2023).     We start with the statute's language; "implicit

     2
            The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided.

                                      3
 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

in the task of statutory construction is our foremost obligation

to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature,

which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in

the statute itself."      Id. (citation omitted).      But "when there is

doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty

of an expression used in a statute, . . . the meaning of the

ambiguous words may be sought by examining the context, with

which the ambiguous words, phrases, and sentences may be

compared, in order to ascertain their true meaning."           Id.
(cleaned up).   "The legislature is presumed not to intend an

absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if

possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality."                State

v. Vliet, 91 Hawai#i 288, 294, 983 P.2d 189, 195 (1999) (cleaned

up).

                             III. DISCUSSION

          The Family Court relied on HRS §§ 587A-4 and -13 to

conclude that Mother and Father were "entitled to notice of and

the right to participate as parties in this case."           HRS § 587A-13

(2018) provides:
          (a)   After a petition has been filed, the court shall issue
          a summons requiring the presence of the parents and other
          persons to be parties to the proceeding except the child, as
          follows:
                . . . .
                (3)    The summons shall state: "YOUR PARENTAL AND
                       CUSTODIAL DUTIES AND RIGHTS CONCERNING THE CHILD
                       OR CHILDREN WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE ATTACHED
                       PETITION MAY BE TERMINATED IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR
                       ON THE DATE SET FORTH IN THIS SUMMONS."

                                     4
 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           HRS § 587A-4 (2018) provides:
           As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly
           indicates otherwise:

                 . . . .

                 "Parent" means any legal parent of a child; the birth
           mother, unless the child has been legally adopted; the
           adjudicated, presumed, or concerned birth father of the
           child as provided in section 578-2(a)(5), unless the child
           has been legally adopted; or the legal guardians or any
           other legal custodians of the child.
                 "Party" means an authorized agency; a child who is
           subject to a proceeding under this chapter; the child's
           parents and guardian ad litem; any other person who is
           alleged in the petition or who is subsequently found at any
           child protective proceeding to be encouraging, causing, or
           contributing to the acts or conditions that brought the
           child within the scope of this chapter; and may include any
           other person, including the child's current foster parent or
           current resource family, if the court finds that such
           person's participation is in the best interest of the child;
           provided that the court may limit a party's right to
           participate in any child protective proceeding if the court
           deems such limitation of such party's participation to be
           consistent with the best interests of the child and such
           party is not a family member who is required to be summoned
           pursuant to section 587A-13, except as otherwise provided in
           this chapter.

(Emphasis added.)

           DHS contends that the plain language of HRS § 587A-13

requires that notice be given to all "parents," defined by HRS

§ 587A-4 to include the birth mother and birth father unless the
child has been legally adopted, even if their parental rights

have been terminated.      HRS § 587A-4 defines "parents" as the

child's birth mother and birth father, "unless the context

clearly indicates otherwise[.]"          (Emphasis added.)

           We hold that the context of HRS § 587A-13 does not

require that birth parents whose parental rights have been

terminated be summoned in further proceedings concerning the

child.   The statute states that if a summoned parent fails to

                                     5
 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

appear at the proceeding for which the summons was issued, the

parent's parental rights may be terminated.       For a birth parent

whose parental rights have been terminated, the sanction means

nothing, is inconsistent with and contradicts the order

terminating parental rights, and is illogical.       See Vliet, 91

Hawai#i at 294, 983 P.2d at 195.       Parents' parental rights in

Children were terminated before DHS filed the Petition.       DHS was

not required by HRS § 587A-13 to issue summons to Parents, who

had no right to participate in the proceeding (unless and until

their parental rights are reinstated by the Family Court).

                         IV. CONCLUSION

          For these reasons: (1) the "Orders Concerning Child

Protective Act[,]" entered on October 13, 2022, are vacated in

part to the extent they deny LASH's motion to dismiss or exclude

Parents; (2) the "Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part

Guardian Ad Litem's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Relief from

Orders Concerning Child Protective Act[,]" entered on November 1,

2022, is vacated in part to the extent it denies LASH's motion

for reconsideration; and (3) the "Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law Regarding Guardian Ad Litem's Motion to

Dismiss and/or Exclude [Parents][,]" entered on November 7, 2022,

                                   6
 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

is vacated.   This case is remanded to the Family Court for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On the briefs:                       /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
                                     Presiding Judge
Scott K.D. Shishido,
Jessica C.M. Uchida,                 /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
for Legal Aid Society of             Associate Judge
Hawai#i, Guardian Ad Litem-
Appellant for Minor Children.        /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
                                     Associate Judge
Julio C. Herrera,
Patrick A. Pascual,
Kellie M. Kersten,
Kenneth G. Goodenow,
Deputy Attorneys General,
State of Hawai#i,
for Petitioner-Appellee
The Department of Human Services.

                                 7