Court Opinion

ID: 9911920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 01:05:05.605713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:02.477312
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                 Electronically Filed
                                                 Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                 CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                 20-DEC-2023
                                                 01:44 PM
                                                 Dkt. 101 MO

                           NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

                      K.T., Petitioner-Appellant,
                                  v.
                       K.H., Respondent-Appellee

         APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                      (CASE NO. 1DA211002876)

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
         (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

           This matter arises from Petitioner-Appellant K.T.'s

(mother) petition for a protective order based on allegations of

domestic abuse.     Mother appeals from the Order Dissolving

Temporary Restraining Order (Order), entered by the Family Court

of the First Circuit1 (family court) on February 15, 2022.             Upon

careful review of the record and the brief submitted by mother,

and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and

     1      The Honorable Rebecca A. Copeland presided over the trial, and
entered the Order.
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the issues raised, we vacate and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this memorandum opinion.

                            I.   Background

           Mother filed a Petition for an Order for Protection

(mother's petition), pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)

§ 586-3 (2018), against Respondent-Appellee K.H. (father).       In

addition to herself, mother's petition also listed her minor son

and minor daughter (collectively, the children), as protected

persons.   Mother's petition listed five allegations of abuse,

and requested a six-year protective order, temporary visitation

and custody orders, and a temporary prohibition of visitation

between the children and father.

           The family court approved and filed an ex parte

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which was amended to ensure

the inclusion of the two children.     The family court ordered the

State of Hawaiʻi, Department of Human Services (DHS) to

investigate the matter and submit a written report to the family

court; the family court further ordered the investigating DHS

social worker to appear to testify at the return hearing.

           DHS, through DHS social worker Jacqueline Espinueva-

Xiong (the DHS worker), filed its Report (the DHS Report) with

the family court on January 10, 2022.     The DHS Report included

the DHS worker's findings, based inter alia, on interviews with

the parties and the children.    The DHS Report found the

allegations of abuse in mother's petition to be "unconfirmed."
                                   2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           The family court held a return hearing on mother's

petition, in which both parties, their counsel, and the DHS

worker were present.      At the hearing, father did not agree to

mother's request for a six-year protective order, and the family

court set the matter for trial.        Father orally moved for

mother's petition to be dismissed, and for mother to be taken

into custody for violation of a prior family court order in the

related paternity case.      The family court denied father's

motions.   Mother orally moved the family court to conduct a

Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 104 hearing,2 and requested

that the family court permit the children to testify at trial.

The family court denied mother's requests.

           Trial commenced in January 2022.         At trial, the family

court heard testimony from the DHS worker, mother, mother's

boyfriend, father, and father's girlfriend.          The family court

found the DHS worker, father, and father's girlfriend to be

credible witnesses; the family court also found the DHS Report

to be credible.     The family court found mother and mother's

boyfriend not to be credible witnesses.

     2      HRE Rule 104(a) provides, in relevant part, that "[p]reliminary
questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the
existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be
determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subsection (b)." HRE
Rule 104(b) states that, "[w]hen the relevancy of evidence depends upon the
fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject
to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the
fulfillment of the condition."
                                       3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          Following the trial, the family court issued the

Order, which dissolved and vacated with prejudice mother's TRO,

based on insufficient evidence.         The family court made the

following unchallenged findings of fact (FOF),

                100. The court finds that [mother] has not proven
          the material allegations of the Petition by a preponderance
          of the evidence.

                101. The court finds that [father] has shown cause
          why a protective order is not necessary.

                 102. The court finds that a protective order is not
          necessary to prevent domestic abuse or the recurrence of
          abuse.

                103. Therefore, the court finds that the TRO should
          be dissolved and dismissed with prejudice for insufficient
          evidence.

          The family court also made the following conclusions

of law (COL),

                46. [Mother] failed to meet her burden to establish
          that [father] committed domestic abuse against her or the
          parties' two minor children.

                47. [Mother] failed to meet her burden to establish
          that either of her children were subjected to imminent
          physical harm.

                48. [Mother] failed to meet her burden to establish
          that [father] committed extreme psychological abuse against
          her or the parties' two minor children.

                49. [Mother] did not establish that [father]
          committed coercive control against her or the parties' two
          minor children.

                50. "It is well-established that imposing discipline
          is part and parcel of caring for children, since a parent
          may not be able to care properly for, or exercise control
          over, an unruly child without the ability to impose
          discipline." Hamilton v. Lethem, 126 Haw. 294, 302, 270
          P.3d 1024, 1032 (2012).

                51. Although [father] did not raise the parental
          discipline defense, to the extent that this Court has found
          that none of his interactions with his children rise to the
          level of domestic abuse but to the extent that those
          actions, statements, and interactions may be construed as

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

          parental discipline, his ability to discipline his children
          in such manner is constitutionally protected. Id.

                52. The Family Court does not err in determining
          that a protective order is not necessary to prevent the
          recurrence of abuse where "[t]here is no evidence in the
          record, and no reasonable inferences could be drawn from
          the evidence, to support a conclusion that the incident was
          anything other than an isolated event." Schack v.
          Kassebeer, NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 142 Haw. 359, at *2, 418
          P.3d 1215 (App. May 31, 2018).

                53. [Mother] failed to meet her burden to establish
          that a protective order was necessary to prevent domestic
          abuse or the recurrence of abuse.

                54. [Mother] failed to prove the material
          allegations of the Petition by a preponderance of the
          credible evidence.

                55. Therefore, the TRO, filed December 29, 2021, is
          dissolved and vacated with prejudice for insufficient
          evidence.

          Mother raises five points of error on appeal.           We

consider these points in turn.

                            II.   Discussion

A. The Children's Testimony

          Mother first contends that "the family court erred in

its[] [oral] ruling prohibiting the minor children from being

allowed to testify without first holding a hearing under [Hawaiʻi

Family Court Rule (HFCR)] Rule 45.1."       Mother contends that this

ruling was clearly erroneous, constituted an abuse of the family

court's discretion, and violated her right to substantive and

procedural due process of law.      Mother asserts a

constitutionally protected interest in presenting her case on

the merits, and in the presentation of "key eye witnesses[']"

testimony at trial.

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

           We review the family court's rulings under the abuse

of discretion standard.    "Generally, the family court possesses

wide discretion in making its decisions and those decisions will

not be set aside unless there is a manifest abuse of

discretion."    In re Doe, 95 Hawaiʻi 183, 189, 20 P.3d 616, 622

(2001) (cleaned up).    "[W]e will not disturb the family court's

decisions on appeal unless the family court disregarded rules or

principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a

party litigant and its decision clearly exceeded the bounds of

reason."   Id. (cleaned up).

           HFCR Rule 45.1 requires family court approval before a

child is summoned to appear as a witness.     HFCR Rule 45.1

("Prior approval must be obtained from the court before any

child is summoned to appear as a witness so that the court may

determine whether to allow the testimony of the child and the

form and manner in which the child's testimony will be

permitted.").    "In determining whether limitations on a child

testifying violates a parent's due process rights, the[] Family

Court must balance competing interests, including the interest

of the parent at stake, the parent's need for the child's

testimony, and the best interests of the child."      In re K

Children, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2013 WL 6244722, at *3 (Haw. App.

Dec. 16, 2013) (SDO) (citing In re Doe Children, 85 Hawaiʻi 119,

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

123, 938 P.2d 178, 182 (App. 1997); HRS § 587A-21(d) (Supp.

2012)).

          The record reflects that the family court denied

mother's request that the children be permitted to testify.             The

family court stated that it was denying mother's request because

it had admitted the children's statements into evidence via the

DHS Report, but it did not provide any further explanation as to

whether it had balanced the competing interests, i.e., mother's

interests, mother's need for the children's testimony, and the

best interest of the children.      In the absence of such

explanation, we cannot conclude that the family court properly

exercised its discretion to deny mother's request.

          The DHS Report provided son's account of the alleged

abuse, as narrated by the DHS worker, including son's

representation that he did not want to return to father's care,

          [Son] spoke to this DHS worker privately but was brief and
          did not have much eye contact with the worker; and [DHS
          worker] noticed he was shaking his head throughout the
          interview when [DHS worker] inquired about his
          father/mother. [Son] began by saying he did not want to go
          back to his Father. He continued to say, ["]No", and shook
          his head when asked further.

          . . . .

          When asked about an alleged incident ([father] threatened
          to strangle [daughter]) with [daughter], [son] claims they
          went out to dine with his Father, family friend, friend's
          adult daughter, and [daughter]. They were walking back to
          their car when his Father saw the window car down
          ([daughter] had forgotten to close the car window), and he
          attested his Father said he was going to "strangle"
          [daughter]. When asked further, [son] shook his head again
          and did not answer.

          [Son] did not disclose any physical abuse by his Father and
          asked again if he was fearful of his Father, shaking his

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

           head, saying that he refused to go back to his Father. It
           appeared he was in a rush to end the conversation, barely
           having any eye contact with this DHS worker.

(Emphasis added.)

           The DHS Report also provided daughter's account of the

alleged abuse, as narrated by the DHS worker, including

daughter's representation that father told her he would

"strangle" her, and that she did not want to return to father's

care,

           When asked about the specific allegations on 08/06/21,
           [daughter] said she approached her mother one day when
           there were people in the home. She told her mother that
           her Father told her she [sic] would "strangle" her. She
           relates that the family went out for dinner that included
           [son], a family friend, and her 20-year-old daughter, and
           when they got into the car, [her] Father yelled at her and
           told her that if she ever left the window down again, he
           would "strangle." She later corrected herself and said,
           "choke." Worker asked if [sic] what had happened next, and
           [daughter] said nothing happened after the incident.

           [Daughter] reports she is not fearful of her Father;
           however, she does not want to return to him.

           . . . .

           At the end of the conversation, [daughter] disclosed she
           did not want to return to her Father's house; she sounded
           conflicted, and later said she wanted a visit with her
           father "only one hour." When asked if there was anything
           else, she wanted to express to this worker, [daughter]
           repeated that she wanted to see her Father for "only for
           one hour."

(Emphasis added.)

           The record contains no explanation by the family court

as to why it would be in the children's best interest to rely

solely on the DHS worker's account of their representations.3

     3      We further note that the children's statements in the DHS Report
were challenged below. Mother's boyfriend testified that both children wrote
statements rebutting the DHS Report; the family court did not admit these
                                                             (continued . . .)
                                       8
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

There is no explanation in the record as to why the children,

who were 14 and 12 years old at the time, would be harmed by

testifying.     Nor is there any explanation that reflects

consideration of whether permitting the children to testify

might have, conversely, furthered their best interests in the

context of this HRS chapter 586 protective order case.             We

observe that the DHS Report, while it found the "threat of abuse

and threatened neglect" to be unconfirmed, did not directly

address the definition of "domestic abuse" in HRS § 586-1 (Supp.

2020) which includes, among other things, "extreme psychological

abuse."4    Although it may consider the DHS Report, the family

court must nevertheless balance competing interests when

deciding whether children may testify.          Here, there is no

explanation as to why, on balance, the children's testimony

should not have been admitted to address whether "a protective

order [was] necessary to prevent domestic abuse or a recurrence

of abuse[.]"      HRS § 586-5.5(a) (2018).

     3(.   . .continued)

statements into evidence. Further, as discussed infra, the family court
issued a ruling that only permitted witnesses to testify if they had direct
knowledge of the allegations in the petition, and also precluded admission of
a video exhibit purportedly made by son on hearsay grounds; yet the court did
not allow the children (who were present for some allegations in mother's
petition) to testify. On remand, the family court should consider these
circumstances as part of assessing the need for the children's testimony.

     4      HRS § 586-1 (Supp. 2020) defines "domestic abuse" to include
"[p]hysical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the threat of imminent physical
harm, bodily injury, or assault, extreme psychological abuse, coercive
control, or malicious property damage between family or household members[.]"
                                       9
     NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

             We conclude, on this record, that the family court

abused its discretion by summarily denying mother's request for

children to testify without balancing the competing interests of

mother and the children.

B.     The DHS Worker's Testimony and Report

             Mother contends that "the family court erred by

admitting into evidence the testimony of the DHS worker and her

report" because the DHS worker was not qualified in court as an

expert in domestic violence, the DHS worker's testimony was

irrelevant, and the DHS Report contained hearsay and was not a

final disposition.       Mother specifically challenges the following

conclusions of law,

                   11. According to Chapter 586: "Reports by the
             department of human services; court responsibilities. In
             cases where there are allegations of domestic abuse
             involving a family or household member who is a minor or an
             incapacitated person as defined in section 560:5-102, the
             employee or appropriate nonjudicial agency designated by
             the family court to assist the petitioner shall report the
             matter to the department of human services, as required
             under chapters 350 and 587, and shall further notify the
             department of the granting of the temporary restraining
             order and of the hearing date. The department of human
             services shall provide the family court with a written
             report on the disposition of the referral. The court shall
             file the report and mail it to the petitioner and
             respondent at least two working days before the hearing
             date, if possible. If circumstances prevent the mailing of
             the report as required in this section, the court shall
             provide copies of the report to the petitioner and
             respondent at the hearing. The report shall be noted in
             the order dismissing the petition or granting the
             restraining order." HRS § 586-10.5.

                   . . . .

                   13. Pursuant to Section 586-10.5, which requires
             this Court to "note[] [the DHS written report] in the order
             dismissing the petition or granting the restraining order,"
             this court did not err or otherwise abuse its discretion in
             considering the DHS Social Worker's Report, filed on
             January 10, 2022.
                                       10
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                 14. Because this Court was statutorily required to
           consider the DHS Social Worker's Report, this Court did not
           err or otherwise abuse its discretion in having the Social
           Worker testify at trial.

                 15. Because this Court was statutorily required to
           consider the DHS Social Worker's Report, it did not err or
           otherwise abuse its discretion in entering the Report as
           the Court's Exhibit "1" at trial.

                 16. The Social Worker's Report, filed on January 10,
           2022, was not inadmissible based upon hearsay.

                 17. The Social Worker's Report was not inadmissible
           under HRS 587A.

                 . . . .

                 19. The court did not err or otherwise abuse its
           discretion in allowing the Social Worker to testify as to
           the Report, filed January 10, 2022, the contents of the
           Report or the Social Worker's investigation, or any
           information contained in the Report.

                 20. Nothing in the Report filed January 10, 2022, or
           the Social Worker's testimony was otherwise impermissibly
           confidential such that it should not have been allowed at
           trial or considered by this Court. To the contrary, this
           Court is statutory [sic] required in domestic abuse cases
           when there are allegations of domestic abuse or the threat
           of domestic abuse against a child or children to refer the
           matter to the DHS for investigation, this Court is
           statutorily mandated to require the DHS to submit a written
           report to the court regarding the disposition of the
           referral, this Court is statutorily required to file the
           report in the case, and it is required to consider the
           report in making its decision to granting or dismissing the
           petition. See HRS § 586-10.5.

                 21. [Mother] did not make any legally viable
           objections that prevented this Court from considering the
           Social Worker's Report or testimony, or in admitting the
           Social Worker's Report into evidence.

           We conclude that the above conclusions of law are not

wrong.   Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawaiʻi 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360

(2006) ("the family court's COLs are reviewed on appeal de novo,

under the right/wrong standard").         The family court did not err

in admitting the DHS Report.       The DHS Report is a "final

disposition."    HRS § 586-10.5 (2018) requires that the
                                     11
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"department of human services shall provide the family court

with a written report on the disposition of the referral" and

further provides that "[t]he report shall be noted in the order

dismissing the petition or granting the restraining order."

The family court verified at trial, on January 12 and 19, 2022,

that the DHS Report was the DHS worker's final disposition in

compliance with HRS § 586-10.5.        The DHS Report found the threat

of abuse and threatened neglect to the children to be

"unconfirmed."5

            The TRO directed that the "Dept. of Human Services is

ordered to investigate this matter, submit a written report to

the Court, and the investigating social worker shall appear to

testify at the hearing."       The DHS Report, which contains third-

party statements, falls within the public record hearsay

exception.    HRE Rule 803(b)(8)(C) (permitting "in civil

proceedings" the admission of public records and reports

containing "factual findings resulting from an investigation

made pursuant to authority granted by law"); State v. Abrigo,

144 Hawaiʻi 491, 493, 445 P.3d 72, 74 (2019) ("An exception to

the evidentiary rule against hearsay typically allows public

records to be admitted into evidence to prove the truth of their

     5      The DHS worker testified that "unconfirmed" means "that there is
no risk of abuse to the kids or neglect."

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

contents, as such documents are generally presumed to be

accurate and reliable.").

             The family court did not err, moreover, in admitting

the DHS worker's testimony at trial.        "Whether expert testimony

should be admitted at trial rests within the sound discretion of

the trial court and will not be overturned unless there is a

clear abuse of discretion."       State v. Fukagawa, 100 Hawaiʻi 498,

503, 60 P.3d 899, 904 (2002) (citations omitted).         The DHS

worker testified as to her experience in handling investigations

and TRO cases as an "investigator assessment worker for 20

years" and as a DHS social worker since 2012.         HRS § 587A-19

(2018) provides that "[a] person employed by the department as a

social worker in the area of child protective services or child

welfare services shall be presumed to be qualified to testify as

an expert on child protective or child welfare services."

Admission of the DHS worker's testimony, on this record, did not

constitute abuse of discretion.

C.     Rulings Regarding Legal Memoranda and Witness Testimony

             Mother contends that "the family court erred in its[]

rulings that counsel could not file memoranda and that only

witnesses who were present at the allegations in the petition

could testify during the hearing[.]"        The family court informed

                                     13
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

counsel below that no legal memoranda would be admitted6 in the

specific context of denying mother's request for the setting of

an HRE Rule 104 hearing.7       We conclude, on this record, that the

family court did not abuse its discretion by informing counsel

     6      The family court ruled as follows,

                        MS. KAWAUCHI [Mother's counsel]: My motion is
                  to request that this -- this case be set also for a
                  104 hearing so that offers of proof can be made for
                  the witnesses to testify and for evidence to be
                  presented.

                        And the reason why I ask for that, Your Honor,
                  is because of the number of witnesses I'm asking for,
                  and I want the Court to have ample time to consider
                  my offers of proof before I call them on Wednesday
                  and have, you know, the Court's calendar there taken
                  with so many of them.

                        But I'd like to set it for a 104 prior to the
                  start of the trial so that we can clear up any --
                  clear up any memorandum or -- that you might want to
                  consider. I am -- I can file memos --

                        THE COURT:   There will --

                        MS. KAWAUCHI:   -- by Friday --

                        THE COURT: -- be no memos in this case. This
                  is a DA [domestic abuse] case. No memos will be
                  permitted.

                        MS. KAWAUCHI: Okay. All right. So offers of
                  proof, then, you would like to be made orally at the
                  time --

                        THE COURT:   I'll explain --

                        MS. KAWAUCHI:   -- (indiscernible)?

                        THE COURT:   -- when I will have those made.

                        MS. KAWAUCHI:   Okay.

                        THE COURT:   I'm not going to set it for a 104
                  hearing.

     7      Mother does not appeal from the family court's decision to deny
the HRE Rule 104 hearing.
                                      14
     NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

that legal memoranda would not be permitted on a matter that the

family court had already resolved when it denied the request for

an HRE Rule 104 hearing.

              We further conclude that the family court did not err

in not permitting witnesses to testify "[i]f they were not

present for and thus do not have direct knowledge of the

allegations in the petition[.]"         HRE Rule 602, which is

instructive here,

             provides that "[a] witness may not testify to a matter
             unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a
             finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the
             matter." The Commentary to HRE Rule 602 explains that,
             "'Personal knowledge,' for purposes of this rule, means
             that the witness perceived the event about which he
             testifies." In other words, witnesses may not testify
             based on "guesswork" or "speculation," such as when the
             witness concludes that a fact "must have" been true. See
             Addison M. Bowman, Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence Manual § 602-
             1[5] (2012).

State v. Apollonio, 130 Hawaiʻi 353, 361, 311 P.3d 676, 684

(2013) (cleaned up); see also HRE Rule 602 cmt. ("Evidence of

personal knowledge is a general foundation requirement for

admissibility of all evidence[.]").          The family court did not

abuse its discretion in requiring, consistent with HRE Rule 602,

that testifying witnesses must have direct, firsthand knowledge

of the events that they were testifying to.

D.     Video Evidence

             Mother contends that "the family court erred in

refusing to admit into evidence videos made by minor child on

the ground that the videos were made in contemplation of

                                       15
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

litigation where the record shows that the court failed to

review the entire exhibit before making its ruling[.]"8               Mother

      8     Mother contends that the family court abused its discretion in
making this ruling, and challenges FOF 49, 50, 51, 53, and 57, and COL 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38. These FOF and COL state,

           [FOF] 49. Over objection by [father], the court initially
           received into evidence the videos proffered by [mother]
           during [mother's boyfriend's] testimony.

           [FOF] 50. However, upon commencement of the first such
           video, the parties' son stated that he was speaking for
           himself and his sister because his sister is nervous about
           the court thing.

           [FOF] 51. The court immediately ordered the video to cease
           being played, and reversed its prior to decision to receive
           the videos into evidence.

                  . . . .

           [FOF] 53. The court further finds the statement made by the
           son at the onset of the first such video made it clear that
           the proffered videos were in fact made in contemplation of
           pending or anticipated litigation, were made at the
           instigation of [mother], and therefore also not made in
           good faith.

                  . . . .

           [FOF] 57. Rather, the court finds that the videos were not
           made until well after the alleged events, and clearly in
           contemplation of pending or anticipated litigation.

                  . . . .

           [COL] 30. HRE Rule 804 governs exceptions to the hearsay
           rule where the declarant is unavailable.

           [COL] 31. Under HRE Rule 804(a), in part, the
           unavailability of a witness "includes situations in which
           the declarant: (1) Is exempted by ruling of the court on
           the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the
           subject matter of the declarant's statement; (2) Persists
           in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the
           declarant's statement despite an order of the court to do
           so; (3) Testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter
           of the declarant's statement; (4) Is unable to be present
           or to testify at the hearing because of death or then
           existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or (5) Is
           absent from the hearing and the proponent of the
           declarant's statement has been unable to procure the

                                                             (continued . . .)
                                      16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

   8(.   . .continued)

           declarant's attendance by process or other reasonable
           means." (Format modified).

           [COL] 32. HRE Rule 804(b)(5) provides for an exception to
           the hearsay rule "if the declarant is unavailable as a
           witness" and the proffered statement by the declarant is
           one of recent perception, defined as "[a] statement, not in
           response to the instigation of a person engaged in
           investigating, litigating, or settling a claim, which
           narrates, describes, or explains an event or condition
           recently perceived by the declarant, made in good faith,
           not in contemplation of pending or anticipated litigation
           in which the declarant was interested, and while the
           declarant's recollection was clear[.]"

           [COL] 33. The videos proffered by [mother] of statements by
           her son constitute inadmissible hearsay and are not
           otherwise excepted from the hearsay rule under HRE Rule
           804(b)(5).

           [COL] 34. HRE Rule 803 governs exceptions to the hearsay
           rule where the availability of the declarant is immaterial.

           [COL] 35. Under HRE Rule 803(b)(1), the present sense
           impression of a declarant is an exception to the hearsay
           rule. Present sense impression is "[a] statement
           describing or explaining an event or condition made while
           the declarant was perceiving the event or condition or
           immediately thereafter."

           [COL] 36. The videos were not admissible as an exception to
           the hearsay rule under HRE Rule 803(b)(1).

           [COL] 37. Under HRE Rule 803(b)(24), provides other
           instances in which statements by a declarant are excepted
           from the hearsay rule under certain circumstances: "A
           statement not specifically covered by any of the exceptions
           in this paragraph (b) but having equivalent circumstantial
           guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that
           (A) the statement is more probative on the point for which
           it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent
           can procure through reasonable efforts, and (B) the general
           purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will
           best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
           However, a statement may not be admitted under this
           exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the
           adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or
           hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair
           opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's
           intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it,
           including the name and address of the declarant.

           [COL] 38. The videos were not admissible as an exception to
           the hearsay rule under HRE Rule 803(b)(24).

                                     17
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

requested to introduce three video recordings, collectively as

Exhibit 1, as follows,

                THE COURT: Okay. We're back on record. . . .
          We are going to play Exhibit 1. Is it broken up into three
          different videos?

                MS. KAWAUCHI [Mother's Counsel]:     Yes.

                THE COURT:    Okay.   So this is Exhibit 1 . . . 1A?

                      . . .

                      (The following video was played:)

                [Son]: Hello my name is [son]. (Inaudible.) I'm
          gonna speak on behalf of [daughter] as well 'cause kinda --
          she's kinda in a bad mood and she's very nervous about this
          court thing. I am too making this video, but I'm trying my
          best to.

                Main thing is I guess --

                THE COURT: Okay. Pause it.

                [Son]: -- I love being with --

                THE COURT: Okay. So his very first portion of his
          testimony, Ms. Kawauchi, indicates that he's going to be
          speaking on behalf of sister also because in part she's
          nervous about this court thing. What's he talking about
          when he says "court thing," Ms. Kawauchi?

                MS. KAWAUCHI: That I don't know, Judge.

                THE COURT: Okay. [Mother's boyfriend]?

                THE WITNESS: My best guess from what I have seen,
          Your Honor, is that there was -- I believe there was
          something on the 30th. There was a hearing to some extent
          on the 30th –-

                THE COURT: Okay.

                THE WITNESS: -- that was taking place.

                THE COURT: Ms. McGivern, do you know –-

                MS. MCGIVERN [Father's Counsel]: Well, there –-

                THE COURT: -- what happened on the 30 --

                MS. MCGIVERN: -- there was an ongoing criminal case
          of Ms. Kawauchi, but I'm concerned --

                                       18
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                THE COURT: No, but what hearing was on the 30th? Was
          there a paternity case hearing, a TRO case hearing, or a
          criminal case hearing to your knowledge on the 30th?

                MS. MCGIVERN: I -- I don't believe so.

                THE COURT: Okay. Well, he is referring to a court
          thing. Based on that statement, the Court is going to
          retract its earlier ruling on the admissibility of 1A. And
          1A it appears has been made in contemplation of some type
          of litigation, even if we don't know what kind of
          litigation.

                Let's move on to 1B, which is the second recording.

                MS. KAWAUCHI: Objection, Your Honor.

                THE COURT: Was it made on the same day?

                MS. MCGIVERN: Yes.

                THE WITNESS: Same time.

                THE COURT: Oh, they were consecutive?

                THE WITNESS: They're one –-

                MS. MCGIVERN: They're –-

                THE COURT: -- one right after another.

                . . . .

                THE COURT: . . . So was it in multiple -- to your
          knowledge, [mother's boyfriend], was it multiple recordings
          because he just did it in snippets?

                THE WITNESS: As far as I know, it was -- the level --
          the length of time that the video --

                THE COURT: Would record?

                THE WITNESS: -- would record.

                THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then the Court is going
          to reverse its earlier ruling. Exhibit 1 will not be
          permitted into evidence and will not be played.

                MS. KAWAUCHI:   Okay.    All right.

          We conclude that the family court did not abuse its

discretion by denying mother's request to introduce the

Exhibit 1 video into evidence.          See State v. Ortiz, 91 Hawai‘i

181, 189, 981 P.2d 1127, 1135 (1999) ("Evidentiary rulings are
                                        19
     NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reviewed for abuse of discretion, unless application of the rule

admits of only one correct result, in which case review is under

the right/wrong standard.") (citation omitted).            In reviewing

the first video, Exhibit 1A, the family court determined that

the video was made in contemplation of a separate litigation,

and that Exhibit 1A was the first part of what was meant to be a

single recording together with the other Exhibit 1 videos.               As

such, the family court was not wrong in concluding that

Exhibit 1 constituted impermissible hearsay that did not fall

within an exception contemplated by HRE Rules 803 or 804.              On

this record, the family court did not abuse its discretion in

denying the admission of Exhibit 1.

E.     Witness Credibility

             Mother contends that "the family court erred by

finding the testimony of [mother] and [mother's] witness

[mother's boyfriend] not credible, as such, the ruling

constitutes an abuse of discretion[.]"9          The family court, as the

      9     Mother's points of error contend that the following FOF of the
family court are clearly erroneous: 46, 48, 58, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75,
76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, and 90. These FOF state,

                   46. The court did not find [mother]'s testimony
             credible.

                   . . . .

                   48. The court did not find [mother's boyfriend]'s
             testimony credible.

                   . . . .

                   58. The court also finds that [mother] failed to
             establish, through [mother's boyfriend's] testimony which
                                                              (continued . . .)
                                       20
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

   9(.   . .continued)

           the court did not find credible, that there were any
           circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

                 . . . .

                 69. [Mother] and [mother's boyfriend] were not
           credible witnesses.

                 70. As part of her closing argument, [mother]
           asserted that [father]'s emotional abuse is a form of
           Munchhausen syndrome by proxy. This is not persuasive as
           there is absolutely no evidence, medical or otherwise, to
           support this claim.

                 71. At trial, [mother] did not ask this Court to take
           judicial notice of any definition – denotative,
           connotative, or otherwise from popular culture or based on
           the news – as to the meaning of "strangle" or
           "strangulation."

                 72. At trial, [mother] also did not provide any
           evidence that either of the parties' minor children were
           aware any popular culture or news references to
           "strangulation," or that the children's reactions to the
           event alleged in the Petition was in any way impacted or
           exacerbated by any such awareness of popular culture or
           news references to "strangulation."

                 73. The court does not find credible the allegations
           that [father] told son that "[h]is life would be a living
           hell if he came back to his mom and that he'd be a failure
           in life," as alleged in paragraph 5B. There is no credible
           evidence to support this allegation. The court finds
           credible [father]'s testimony that this never occurred.

                 74. The court does not find credible the allegation
           that any actions or statements by [father] caused either of
           the children to have suicidal tendencies.

                 75. The court does not find credible the allegation
           that [father] otherwise caused son to "slic[e] his skin on
           his wrist because of continuous psychological abuse" or
           "verbal threats" as alleged in paragraph 5C.

                 76. The court does not find credible the allegation
           that the parties' daughter "was self-harming" as a result
           of "the stress created by [father]'s constant verbal
           harassment of" her.

                 77. Rather, the court finds credible that any
           suicidal acts, thoughts, or tendencies by one or both of
           the children occurred while they were in [mother]'s care.

                                                            (continued . . .)
                                     21
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

      9(.   . .continued)

                    78. The court does not find credible [mother]'s
              allegations that [father] made financial threats against
              her via third persons and/or that any such messages
              received by [mother] from third persons not named as
              respondents in her Petition against [father] in any way
              originated by or through [father].

                    79. The court does not find credible [mother]'s
              allegations that [father] sought to obtain money to have
              his debts paid through third persons.

                    . . . .

                    81. The court does not find credible that third
              persons expected [mother] to pay in the millions.

                    82. Additionally, with regard to allegations 5A and
              5E, there is absolutely no credible testimony or evidence
              to support these two allegations in their entirety.

                    83. The court does not find credible [mother]'s
              testimony that the incident alleged in paragraph 5A rises
              to the level of extreme psychological abuse or coercive
              control.

                    . . . .

                    87. Neither the allegation in paragraph 5A nor
              [mother]'s related testimony and evidence establishes a
              "course of conduct" that "seriously alarm[ed] or
              disturb[ed] consistently or continually bother[ed]"
              [mother].

                    88. Neither the allegation in paragraph 5A nor
              [mother]'s related testimony and evidence establishes that
              the alleged conduct "would cause a reasonable person to
              suffer extreme emotional distress."

                    89. Neither the allegation in paragraph 5A nor
              [mother]'s related testimony and evidence establishes "a
              pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating
              actions," nor any pattern of behavior that constitutes
              coercive control, as that term is defined under Hawaiʻi law.

                    90. In addition, with respect to allegation 5E,
              there is no credible evidence that [father] directed anyone
              to contact the [mother] in order to collect his debts.
              The Court finds the [father]'s testimony credible that he
              did not do so.

(Footnote omitted.)
                                        22
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

fact finder, determines witness credibility.      This court will

not disturb the family court's determination of credibility on

appeal.   In re Doe, 95 Hawaiʻi 183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001)

("It is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon

issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the

weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of

fact.") (citations omitted).    We conclude that the family court

did not err in finding that mother and mother's boyfriend were

not credible witnesses.

                            III. Conclusion

           For the reasons explained in section IIA, the family

court's February 15, 2022 Order Dissolving Temporary Restraining

Order, and June 1, 2022 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

are vacated.   We remand with instructions to the family court to

make a determination, based on a proper balancing of mother's

interests and the best interest of the children, as to whether

the family court should have granted mother's request for the

children to testify at trial.    The family court is further

                                  23
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

instructed to take appropriate actions consistent with that

determination and this memorandum opinion.

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 20, 2023.

On the brief:
                                       /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Jamae K.K. Kawauchi,                   Chief Judge
for Petitioner-Appellant.
                                       /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
                                       Associate Judge

                                       /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
                                       Associate Judge

                                  24