In re Doe
| Decision Date | 08 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 23663, No. 23664. |
| Parties | In the Interest of Jane DOE, Born on December 15, 1982; John Doe, Born on August 24, 1984. In the Interest of John DOE, Born on October 20, 1991; John Doe, Born on November 24, 1992. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Lloyd Van de Car, on the briefs, for mother-appellant.
Brian J. De Lima and David H. Lawton (Crudele, De Lima & Shiroma), on the briefs, Hilo, for father-appellant.
Marlene Q.F. Young, Mary Anne Magnier and Jay K. Goss, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs, for Department of Human Services-Appellee.
We hold that parents who are in need of an interpreter because of their inability to understand English are entitled to the assistance of one at any family court hearing in which their parental rights are substantially affected. However, under the circumstances of this case, Appellant-Mother1 (Mother) has failed to demonstrate her "need of an interpreter" and the manner, if any, whereby she was substantially prejudiced by the absence of an interpreter at certain proceedings. Moreover, Appellee-Department of Human Services (DHS) established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother's children were harmed by her or that she presented a threat of harm to them. As to Father, despite his contention that the Family Court of the Third Circuit2 (the court) inappropriately considered his behavior outside of Hawai`i, the court's findings that he harmed his children and posed a threat to them can be sustained on the basis of Father's actions in Hawai`i. Therefore, we hold that the court properly exercised jurisdiction in the instant case. We affirm the court's May 22, 2000 decision and order which granted foster custody of Jane Doe (born 12/15/82), John Doe 1 (born 8/24/84), John Doe 2 (born 10/20/91), and John Doe 3 (born 11/24/92) (collectively, Children) to DHS and the July 31, 2000 order denying parents' motion for reconsideration.
All four children, who are the subject of the proceedings, are the natural children of Father. Mother is the natural mother of only John Doe 2 and John Doe 3. Jane Doe and John Doe 1 are now eighteen years old. Family court jurisdiction over them has expired because they are not less than eighteen years of age. See Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 587-2 (1993) and -11 (1993).3 Therefore, all appeals regarding Jane Doe's and John Doe's foster custody status are now moot.
DHS received a referral on August 6, 1999, alleging that Father had sexually abused Jane Doe and had physically abused the Children. On August 19, 1999, a detective and DHS social worker interviewed Mother and Father. John Doe 2 and John Doe 3 were taken into protective custody after the interview, but John Doe 1 remained in the family home. On August 23, 1999, DHS filed a Petition for Temporary Foster Custody. The first hearing for this case was held on August 25, 1999, at which time the court awarded temporary foster custody to DHS and set the case for a return date of September 2, 1999.
The court made its decision after questioning Mother on the record without an interpreter. That afternoon, the court chose to handle "housekeeping" matters rather than take further testimony from Mother because of the interpreter's absence. At the close of the hearing, the court told Mother's attorney, but then asked the bailiff to obtain an interpreter for the next hearing.
At the continuation of the disposition hearing on November 2, 1999, an interpreter was not present. Mother's attorney again requested an interpreter. After a recess, however, he informed the court that Mother was willing to proceed without an interpreter for that day on the condition she not testify.5 The court did not question Mother regarding this procedure, but rather recounted its efforts to secure a Marshallese interpreter, explaining that, (Emphasis added.) The November 2, 1999 hearing continued with the testimony of Jane Doe's foster parent, the foster parent of John Doe 2 and John Doe 3, and the DHS social worker assigned to the case. Jane Doe's foster mother testified about several conversations she had with Mother,6 each of which took place in English. Jane Doe's foster mother, who does not speak Marshallese, explained, At the close of the hearing, the court conducted the following colloquy with Mother's attorney:
(Off-the-record discussion.)
(Off-the-record discussion.)
(Emphases added.)
On December 17, 1999, Father called Mother to the stand without an interpreter present. Before her testimony, however, the deputy attorney general representing DHS inquired of the court as to whether the court was "going to have problems with an interpreter." A recess was taken and, upon resuming the hearing, the court stated, "We're going to call [Mother]," to which Mother's attorney responded, "Yes, Your Honor." The direct examination proceeded with difficulty initially:
(Emphases added.) The remainder of the hearing on December 17 was completed without the aid of an interpreter. The resulting examination proceeded smoothly. For example, Mother testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Cox
...in the care, custody, and control of their children,’ independent of the United States Constitution” (quoting In re Doe, 99 Hawai‘i 522, 533, 57 P.3d 447, 458 (2002) )). Although this fundamental right is not involved here because the parties did not have minor children at the time this div......
-
Lily E. Hamilton On Behalf of Amber J. Lethem v. Lethem
...process of law [.]”). This guarantee encompasses two components of due process: procedural and substantive. In re Doe, 99 Hawai‘i 522, 533 n. 14, 57 P.3d 447, 458 n. 14 (2002). We address each in turn. Father alleges that the Family Court's grant of the TRO infringed on his constitutional r......
-
State v. Matavale
...We begin our analysis with the well-established principle that "parental rights are of constitutional dimension." In re Doe, 99 Hawai`i 522, 532, 57 P.3d 447, 457 (2002). A parent's right to direct his or her child's upbringing has found protection in both the federal and Hawaii constitutio......
-
IN RE RGB
...Constitution affords parents a due process right to counsel in all termination proceedings.17 However, in In re Doe, 99 Hawai`i 522, 533, 57 P.3d 447, 458 (2002) (citation omitted), we held that article 1, section 5 of the Hawai`i Constitution provides parents a "substantive liberty interes......