Court Opinion

ID: 9943067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 18:04:39.977154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:01.017658
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                 Electronically Filed
                                                 Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                 CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                 22-FEB-2024
                                                 07:45 AM
                                                 Dkt. 72 SO

                          NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

                        IN THE INTEREST OF M.J.

         APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                        (FC-S NO. 19-00279)

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

           Guardian Ad Litem-Appellant Court Appointed Special

Advocates Program (CASA) appeals from the Findings and Orders

Concerning Child Protective Act, entered on May 5, 2022 (May 5,

2022 Order), which denies CASA's March 11, 2022 Reconsideration

and/or Motion for Relief from the Findings and Orders Concerning

Child Protective Act.     CASA also challenges the Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law entered on August 11, 2022 (FOFs/COLs) in

the Family Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawai#i

(Family Court).1

           M.J. (Child) was born in mid-2018.         On November 19,

2019, Child entered foster care.       On November 22, 2019, Appellee

     1
           The Honorable John C. Bryant, Jr., presided.
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a Petition for Temporary

Foster Custody of Child (Petition) due in part to Appellee-

Father's (Father's) alleged noncompliance with required sex-

offender treatment.   On the same day, DHS filed a Family Service

Plan recommending Father comply with court-ordered sex offender

treatment and Hawaii's Opportunity Probation and Enforcement

(HOPE) probation, among other things.

          On December 4, 2019, the Family Court awarded DHS with

foster custody over Child and Appellee-Mother and Father were

permitted "reasonable supervised or unsupervised visitation" with

Child at DHS and CASA's discretion.     On October 20, 2021, and

October 21, 2021, the Family Court held an evidentiary hearing

(October 2021 Hearings) on (1) an Order to Show Cause why the DHS

shall not submit a Motion to Terminate Parental Rights or

Petition for Guardianship, and (2) Father's request for family

supervision.   At the October 2021 Hearings, Dr. Joseph Giovannoni

(Dr. Giovannoni), a qualified expert in sexual abuse treatment,

testified that he treated Father through the Adult Probation

Special Services Branch (APS).     Dr. Giovannoni testified, inter

alia, that he did not clinically discharge Father, but Dr.

Giovannoni closed the case with Father because Father made the

choice to go to another program.

          The Family Court continued the hearing to February 8,

2022 (February 8, 2022 Hearing) and, inter alia, continued foster

custody of Child.   In conjunction with the hearing, the Family

Court considered additional argument and evidence, including

further testimony from DHS Social Worker Renee San Nicolas (San

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

Nicolas), Acting Chief Program Officer at Child and Family

Services Amanda Pump (Pump), and Brandi Lawrence (Lawrence), who

had qualified as experts in the field of sex offender treatment.

A November 23, 2021 Supplemental Safe Family Home Report to Court

indicated that Father was to receive a "maximum benefits"

discharge and not a "clinical discharge" because he has not

admitted to/taken responsibility for the sexual offenses for

which he had been convicted.        The Family Court specifically

stated it was proceeding on the basis that the sex abuse had
occurred, but that based on assessments and testimony, Father was

at low risk.    The Family Court found it would be unfairly

prejudicial to Father to change treatment programs, as then

requested by DHS and CASA.       At the end of the February 8, 2022

Hearing, based upon the credible testimony of the witnesses,

exhibits entered into evidence and the parties' arguments, the

Family Court found that there was "absolutely no evidence" that

there were different recidivism rates for clinical discharge and

maximum benefits discharge, so "there was no evidence whatsoever

that maximum benefit versus clinical discharge is any better than

the other."    The court ordered that Father receive a two-hour

unsupervised visit with Child once a week, and set up a periodic

review hearing.

           A March 11, 2022 Order stated, in relevant part, as

follows:
           C      RENEE SAN NICOLAS was qualified to testify as an
                  expert in the field on child welfare/protective
                  services under the HRS §587A-19, the Hawaii Rules of
                  Evidence, Rule 702, and based on her education,
                  training and experience;

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

          D     AMANDA PUMP was qualified to testify as an expert in
                the field on sexual abuse treatment under the Hawaii
                Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, based on her education,
                training, and experience;
          E     BRANDI LAWRENCE was qualified to testify as an expert
                in the field on sexual offender therapy under the
                Hawaii Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, based on her
                education, training, and experience;
          F     The witnesses testified credibly and their testimony
                was helpful to the Court, however none of the
                witnesses knew the recidivism rate of sexual offenders
                who receive a non-clinical discharge, clinical
                discharge, or a maximum benefit discharge; i.e., it is
                unknown whether one type of discharge is more
                effective than the other and judicial notice is not
                appropriate to determine that issue;
          G     [Father] is a convicted sex offender and as a result
                of his convictions for Sexual Assaults in the second,
                third and fourth degrees, is registered as a sex
                offender and the Court must proceed in this case as if
                the sexual abuse committed by [Father], but denied by
                him, actually occurred;

          . . . .
          I     BRANDI LAWRENCE testified that [Father] cannot receive
                a clinical discharge from her treatment without an
                admission to the sexual offenses for which he was
                convicted, but [Father] may receive a maximum benefit
                discharge from her treatment by completing the
                treatment to address his problems to the extent
                possible;

          . . . .
          K     The Court concludes that it would be unfairly
                prejudicial to [Father] to require him to start
                treatment with a new provider at this point in the
                case, when the child's date of entry into foster care
                was November 19, 2019, and treatment with a DHS sex
                abuse treatment provider would take at least two (2)
                years from date of entry[.]

          . . . .
          2     The request for [Father] to enter treatment with a DHS
                contracted provider for sex offender treatment is
                denied;

          . . . .
          8     The issue regarding the psychological evaluation for
                [Father] is reserved[.]

          On March 21, 2022, CASA filed a Motion for

Reconsideration and/or Motion for Relief from the [March 11, 2022

Order] (Motion for Reconsideration).       CASA argued, inter alia,

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

that the Family Court improperly researched and considered

recidivism rates in its decision.         The Family Court explained

that it was important to determine whether Father should be

required to transfer programs and complete an additional two

years of treatment before he could have limited unsupervised

visitation with Child.      The Family Court stated that it was

unable to determine whether or not it could take judicial notice

concerning whether clinical discharge was more beneficial and

produced a lower rate of recidivism as compared to maximum
benefits discharge.      The Family Court then clarified that:
                  Even if that research was improper, the court was left
            with the same conclusion at the end of its research that it
            had at trial, and that there was no evidence as to the
            difference between the two programs. In other words, the
            same conclusion was reached whether or not the court did its
            own research or not.

            In a May 5, 2022 Order, the Family Court ruled that its

"efforts to determine the efficacy of taking judicial notice of

the differences, if any, between a clinical discharge and a

maximum benefit discharge was appropriate - especially since both

CASA and DHS failed to produce such critical evidence."

            On May 31, 2022, CASA filed a notice of appeal.

            On appeal, CASA challenges the Family Court's FOFs 24,
30 and 55, and COLs 4, 10, 11, 13, and 14 set forth in the

FOFs/COLs;2 and contends that the Family Court erred in refusing

to order Father to submit to a psychological evaluation.             The

contested FOFs and COLs are as follows:
                  24.   In mid-2021, the DHS and the CASA learned that a
            "maximum benefit" discharge from Father's sex offender
            treatment was acceptable to be in compliance with the terms

      2
            CASA also challenges the corresponding findings and conclusions
set form in the May 5, 2022 Order and the March 11, 2022 Order.

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

        of Father's probation when clinical discharge from sex
        offender treatment had previously been requested.
        . . . .
              30.   None of the sex offender treatment experts were
        able to testify that the recidivism rates between a "maximum
        benefit" treatment program and a "clinical discharge"
        program were any different. In other words, none of the sex
        offender treatment experts were able to testify that a
        "clinical discharge" program was better for Father rather
        than a "maximum discharge" program.
        . . . .
              55.   Based upon the credible expert testimony of the
        DHS social worker RENEE SAN NICOLAS, the problems preventing
        FATHER from being able to provide a safe home for the Child
        is his sexual abuse history and lack of appropriate
        parenting ability.

        . . . .

        4.    AMANDA PUMP was qualified to testify as an expert in
              the field of sexual abuse treatment under the Hawaii
              Rules of Evidence Rule 702 based on her education,
              training, and experience.
        . . . .

                             Visitation

        10.   Based on the credible testimony of the BRANDI LAWRENCE
              that the period between when the STABLE 2007 test was
              administered in November 2021 and the trial in
              February 2022, that father has made improvements in
              the areas of Poor Problem Solving and Negative
              Emotionality/Hostility, it is a reasonable conclusion
              that at the time of the February 8, 2022 trial, Father
              posed a low risk or criminogenic need and may be
              permitted limited unsupervised visitation with the
              Child to be arranged at the discretion of the DHS and
              in consultation with the CASA/GAL.

                  Sex Offender Treatment for Father

        11.   Father is on probation for his sexual assault
              convictions and is required to participate in sex
              offender treatment through probation resulting from
              that conviction. Since April 2021, Father has been
              engaged in sex offender treatment through probation
              and has been making progress. The evidence presented
              at trial was that if Father started a new sex offender
              program, that program would take an additional two
              years to complete. It would be prejudicial and unfair
              to Father to require him to start treatment with a new
              provider at this point in the case, when the child's
              date of entry into foster care was November 19, 2019.
        . . . .

        13.   It was appropriate for the Court, in light of the non-
              existence of the evidence supporting the issue of why
              the Court should order a "clinical discharge" sex

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

                  offender treatment program, as requested by CASA and
                  DHS, to attempt to take judicial notice of the fact.
           14.    The Court was unable to take judicial notice of the
                  contested fact. As such, the Court was left with the
                  same evidentiary set of facts that was in existence
                  when the Court undertook its independent investigation
                  into the issue: there was no evidence to support
                  CASA's and DHS' position that a "clinical discharge"
                  program was better than a "maximum discharge" program
                  in regards to Father's treatment. As such, even if
                  not appropriate, the Court's independent investigation
                  was harmless error.

           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 by the parties, we
resolve CASA's points of error as follows:

           (1)   CASA argues that FOF 24 is clearly erroneous

because San Nicolas testified that she learned Father's HOPE

probation sex offender treatment program would be okay with

maximum benefits discharge "right before trial in October" and

not "mid-2021."

           San Nicolas testified that she learned, right before

the   October 2021 Hearings, that "probation [APS] would be okay

with maximum benefit."      This could reasonably be construed as

part of the (broad) middle of the year 2021.           It appears that the

point was that she did not know this early in the case; it is

clear that the Family Court understood that.           We cannot conclude

that FOF 24 is clearly erroneous.

           CASA argues that FOF 30 is clearly erroneous because

the expert testimony effectively showed that clinical discharge

is better than maximum benefits discharge.          However, Pump, who

qualified as an expert on sex abuse treatment and child welfare,

testified that clinical discharge differs from maximum benefits

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

discharge because clinical discharge requires completion of all

elements of treatment, including an admission of the prior sex

offense, whereas maximum benefits discharge does not.      Pump

testified, inter alia, that admitting to the sexual abuse offense

helps reduce recidivism because it helps the offender "understand

why he committed the abuse and how to prevent the abuses."        In

response to questions from the Family Court, Pump testified that

she did not know the recidivism rates for, inter alia, clinical

discharge or maximum benefits discharge.     It is clear from the
record that the Family Court considered the risk of recidivism,

i.e., that Father would reoffend, as a highly important factor in

deciding whether or not to allow Father unsupervised visitation

with Child.

          Lawrence, who was qualified as an expert in sex

offender treatment, had treated Father and testified that she

would not clinically discharge Father because he did not admit to

the underlying offense.    Lawrence testified that she did not know

the recidivism rates for maximum benefits or clinical discharge,

could not offer an opinion on Father's risk of reoffending and

stated that "it is really difficult to answer that because not

all programs give out clinical discharge."     Lawrence observed

that maximum benefits discharge did not involve having the

clients admit to the offense while clinical discharge involves

admission.    Lawrence did not testify that one treatment program

was better than the other.

          The other experts, Dr. Giovannoni and San Nicolas, did

not know the difference in outcomes between clinical and maximum

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

benefits discharge nor Father's risk of reoffending.      According

to the November 23, 2021 Supplemental Safe Family Home Report to

Court prepared by San Nicolas, Father was set to receive maximum

benefits discharge because he did not admit to the sexual abuse

offense.   Dr. Giovannoni testified that he usually issues maximum

benefits discharge in court-ordered treatment.       San Nicolas, on

the other hand, testified that DHS recommended clinical discharge

for Father so he could "acknowledge and accept responsibility"

for the offense, contrary to the maximum benefits discharge
provided by APS where Father does not need to admit to the

offense.   San Nicolas further testified that she did not know

whether an offender could receive appropriate sex offender

treatment without admitting to the underlying offense.

           Based on the evidence in the record before the Family

Court, we cannot conclude that the Family Court clearly erred in

entering FOF 30.

           CASA argues that FOF 55 is clearly erroneous because

Father's alleged refusal to participate in a psychological

evaluation is a reason that Father could not provide a safe home

for Child, not just his "child sexual abuse history and lack of
appropriate parenting ability."

           San Nicolas testified that Father had not participated

in a psychological evaluation as part of DHS' new service plan.

San Nicolas did not testify that this prevented him from

providing a safe home for Child.       San Nicolas did not testify

that the lack of this evaluation had a correlation to Father's

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

inability to provide a safe home.      Thus, we conclude that CASA's

challenge to FOF 55 is without merit.

          CASA argues that the Circuit Court erred in entering

COL 4 because Pump was qualified as an expert in sexual abuse

treatment, child abuse and neglect, not just sexual abuse

treatment.   While the record reflects that the Family Court

qualified Pump as an expert in child abuse, neglect and sexual

abuse treatment, COL 4 is not wrong.     At worst, it is incomplete.

However, the disputed issue here is sexual abuse treatment and
COL 4 correctly states that Pump was qualified as an expert in

sexual abuse treatment.

          CASA alleges that COL 10 is incorrect because Father

still poses a danger to Child and therefore the threatened harm

to Child is substantial and irreparable.     It appears that COL 10

is based, inter alia, on FOF 32, which found that Father

participated in STABLE 2007 Risk Assessment with Lawrence, and

Father scored in the "lower end of the moderate range of

criminogenic needs" and Lawrence testified Father improved in

"Poor Problem Solving" and "Negative Emotionality/Hostility."

(The higher end of the range is problematic.)     The Family Court

found Lawrence's expert testimony, which is the basis for

unchallenged FOF 32, to be credible.     CASA has failed to

demonstrate that COL is wrong or that, as a result of that

conclusion, the Family Court abused its discretion in allowing

Father limited unsupervised visits with Child.

          CASA alleges that COL 11 is wrong because it was

Father's fault for prolonging his separation from Child and it

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

was wrong for the Family Court to conclude that Father's

transition to DHS-provided treatment would take an additional two

years.   As to the additional period of time, COL 11 relies upon

Pump's testimony, which the Family Court determined to be

credible.    Pump testified that on average, it takes DHS clients

about two years to complete DHS's preferred sexual abuse

treatment.    CASA argues that in COL 11, the Family Court put

Father's interests ahead of Child's best interests and did not

consider Father's own actions in its decision.     This argument is
inconsistent with the FOFs and COLs as a whole.      The Family Court

found no credible evidence was presented that the newly

recommended treatment requiring that Father admit prior sexual

abuse would provide a better outcome, and pursuant to Hawaii

Revised Statutes Chapter 587A, there is in effect an outer limit

of time for potential reunification.     We cannot conclude that the

Family Court erred or abused its discretion in COL 11.

            CASA argues that COL 13 was erroneous because it was

improper for the Family Court to research recidivism rates sua

sponte and because the Family Court did not notify the parties

prior to conducting the research.      A sua sponte decision to take

judicial notice of an adjudicative fact constitutes an exercise

of a court's discretion.    State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai#i 319, 328-29,

984 P.2d 78, 87-88 (1999) (citing Rule 201(c) of the Hawai#i

Rules of Evidence).    "Judicial notice or knowledge may be defined

as the cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may

properly take and act upon without proof because they already

know them."    State v. Herrera, 63 Haw. 405, 408, 629 P.2d 626,

                                  11
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

629 (1981) (citations omitted).    However, the Family Court did

not take judicial notice of the research it conducted on

recidivism rates because it could not determine whether

recidivism rates were appropriate for judicial notice, and stated

that the court's research did not affect its decisions.

          The Family Court found and concluded that there was no

evidence of recidivism rates presented by the parties, and the

court did not take judicial notice of any such fact.      Thus, even

if it was improper for the Family Court to conduct such research,
we conclude that it was harmless error under the circumstances

here.

           CASA alleges that COL 14 is wrong because Pump's and

Lawrence's testimony demonstrated that clinical discharge is

better than maximum benefits discharge.     However, as discussed

above, the court weighed the evidence in the record and found

that it did not support a conclusion that clinical discharge is

necessarily better than maximum benefits discharge.      In light of

the lack of evidence demonstrating that clinical discharge is

better than maximum benefits discharge, we conclude that CASA's

argument is without merit.

          CASA alleges that the Family Court erred in refusing to

order Father to submit to a psychological evaluation.      We review

the Family Court's decision for an abuse of discretion.      In re

Doe, 95 Hawai#i 183, 189, 20 P.3d 616, 622 (2001).     The Family

Court determined that Father's service plan would continue to

require Father to participate in and comply with APS' sex

offender treatment but reserved the psychological evaluation

                                  12
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

issue at the February 8, 2022 hearing.     We cannot conclude that

the Family Court abused its discretion in deferring the issue of

a psychological evaluation.

          For these reasons, the Family Court's May 5, 2022 Order

is affirmed.

          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 22, 2024.

On the briefs:                         /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                       Acting Chief Judge
Brandon K. Eugenio,
(Arakaki & Eugenio, LLLC),             /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Guardian Ad Litem-Appellant,           Associate Judge
Court-Appointed Special Advocates
 Program.                              /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
                                       Associate Judge
Herbert Y. Hamada,
for Father-Appellee.

                                  13