GP v. LP, CAAP–15–0000348.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CAAP–15–0000348.,CAAP–15–0000348. |
| Citation | 138 Hawai'i 134,377 P.3d 1052 (Table) |
| Parties | GP, Petitioner–Appellant, v. LP; Child Support Enforcement Agency, State of Hawai‘i, Respondents–Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Rosa Flores, on the briefs, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Stacey Joroff, on the briefs, for Respondent–Appellee LP.
Petitioner–Appellant GP appeals from the “Order Granting [Respondent–Appellee LP's] Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction” (Order Granting Amended Motion to Dismiss ), entered on March 20, 2015 in the Family Court of the Fifth Circuit1 (family court ).
On appeal, GP contends the family court erred in:
(1) failing to assert jurisdiction because a significant connection existed between GP, the children, and Kaua‘i, and no other grounds existed for the family court to relinquish jurisdiction to the Ohio court;
(2) failing to consider that no emergency jurisdiction ever existed to permit Ohio to establish jurisdiction;
(3) failing to consider that the Ohio paternity proceeding was terminated;
(4) failing to take into account a violation by LP of the “Clean Hands” section of the 1997 Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA );
(5) finding that Ohio would be a more convenient forum for GP; and
(6) refusing to allow GP to testify regarding matters relevant to whether Ohio was an inconvenient forum.
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, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude GP's appeal is without merit.
GP challenges the family court's March 20, 2015 decision that The family court determined, “[c]onsidering all of the factors set forth in [HRS] $583A–207 [ (2006 Repl.) ], that Hawaii is an inconvenient forum and decline[d] to exercise jurisdiction of the custody case.”
In 2002, the Hawai‘i legislature adopted the UCCJEA, codified in HRS §§ 583A–101 et seq.
The UCCJEA governs jurisdictional issues that arise in interstate child custody proceedings. NB v. GA, 133 Hawai‘i 436, 440, 329 P.3d 341, 345 (App.2014).
GP argues that the family court erred in finding that Hawai‘i was an inconvenient forum under HRS § 583A–2072
and contends that the Ohio court would be a more inconvenient forum because the family court “failed to take into account [GP's] extreme hardship in traveling to and lodging in Ohio, especially each time [LP] violated court orders there, and disregarded [GP's] offer and ability to fly and house [LP] and the children at his expense in Kauai.” GP also argues that he “was not allowed to fully testify to the sicknesses of the children and to the continued operations of his business[.]”
At the hearing before the family court, attorney Andrew Wick, who was representing LP in the pending Ohio case, testified that LP had seventeen witnesses to call before the Ohio court. None of the witnesses were located in Hawai‘i. GP had twelve witnesses on his list for the Ohio custody proceeding, with three located in Hawai‘i, two of whom were scheduled to appear telephonically.
LP testified that GP was physically and verbally abusive towards her and their children. LP also testified that her financial situation prevented her from flying to Hawai‘i or flying her witnesses to Hawai‘i if the custody proceedings were held in Hawai‘i.
GP testified at the jurisdiction hearing that he never abused LP or the children. GP testified that he and LP agreed to dismiss the proceedings in Ohio while they attempted counseling in Iowa. He also testified that he bought LP plane tickets to Hawai‘i and arranged for a house for LP and the children in Kaua‘i for the custody proceedings in the family court.
As to his financial situation, GP estimated that his salary was $1,600 per month, but that he could raise his salary to pay for the custody proceedings. GP testified that he received financial assistance from family members for the custody proceedings and could request more assistance for future proceedings.
Regarding the inconvenience of litigating the custody dispute in Ohio, GP testified, GP testified that it was difficult to respond to motions filed in Ohio, stating, GP testified that he was willing to purchase plane tickets for LP and the children to offset the cost of litigating in Hawai‘i. GP. testified that he believed that flying LP and the children to Hawai‘i would be cheaper than flying himself to Ohio for custody proceedings, taking into consideration lost income from his newly established business.
GP also testified about a number of instances in which LP attempted to block his visitation rights with the children. The family court noted that these attempts were relevant to the issue of custody and the evidence of these instances would be in Ohio.
GP's first argument that the family court “failed to take into account [GP's] extreme hardship in traveling to and lodging in Ohio” is unsupported by the record. The family court heard his testimony regarding the cost of traveling to, staying in hotels, and renting homes in Ohio. GP also testified to the family court about the impact traveling to Ohio would have on his business in Kaua‘i. GP asserts on appeal that he was precluded from fully testifying about the “continued operations of his business,” but the line of questioning at the hearing relating to his continued business operations were offered to establish GP's ties to Hawai‘i. GP's testimony was explicitly not offered to establish his financial circumstances, one of the factors enumerated in HRS § 583–207(b).
GP's next argument that the family court “disregarded [GP's] offer and ability to fly and house [LP] and the children at his expense in Kauai” is likewise unsupported by the record. GP testified as to his willingness to fly LP and the children to Kaua‘i and to provide them with temporary housing. GP provides no evidence to support his contention that the family court disregarded his testimony in determining that Hawai‘i was an inconvenient forum.
GP's argument that he “was not allowed to fully testify to the sicknesses of the children” fails because GP has not demonstrated that the health of his children was relevant to the family court's determination that Hawai‘i was an inconvenient forum. GP does not argue that his children's health is related to any of the factors enumerated in HRS § 583A–207(b)
and does not make any argument that his children's health is otherwise relevant.
Based on the testimony presented to the family court relevant to the factors in HRS § 583A–207(b)
, we hold that the family court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Hawai‘i was an inconvenient forum and Ohio was a more convenient forum for the custody dispute.3
GP contends the family court should have considered LP's alleged violation of HRS § 583A–208
(2006 Repl.)4 because LP “abduct[ed] the children to Ohio without the consent of [GP]” and “gained a significant advantage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G.P. v. L.M.
...custody, support and visitation. The Hawai'i Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment entry in GP v. LP, 138 Hawai'i 134, 377 P.3d 1052, 2016 WL 1601059 (Haw.App.2016), filed on March 31, 2016. {¶16} Mother's complaint before the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas came on for a ......