In re Interest of CS

• Decision Date: 06 May 2022
• Docket Number: CAAP-21-0000482
• Citation: 151 Hawai‘i 131,508 P.3d 1217 (Table)
• Parties: In the INTEREST OF CS, WS, KS1, KS2
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

151 Hawai‘i 131

508 P.3d 1217 (Table)

In the INTEREST OF CS, WS, KS1, KS2

NO. CAAP-21-0000482

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

May 6, 2022

On the briefs:

Crystal M. Asano, for Mother-Appellant.

Simeona A. Mariano Julio Cesar Herrera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Department of Human Services-Appellee.

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Mother-Appellant (Mother ) appeals from the Family Court of the First Circuit's (Family Court )¹ August 13, 2021 Order Terminating Parental Rights, August 13, 2021 Letters of Permanent Custody, and September 23, 2021 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, terminating her and Father-Appellee's (Father ) parental rights to CS, WS, KS1, and KS2 [collectively Children ].

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 Mother's arguments below and affirm.²

(1) Mother contends the Family Court prevented her from fully cross-examining one of the resource caregivers regarding the safety of their home.

The "[d]iscretion resides within a trial court to determine the scope and extent of cross examination." In re Doe, 100 Hawai‘i 335, 346 n.23, 60 P.3d 285, 296 n.23 (2002) (citing HRE Rule 1101 (1993)); Doe v. Doe, 98 Hawai‘i 144, 154–55, 44 P.3d 1085, 1095–96 (2002). Here, the Family Court appears to have limited Mother's cross-examination because Mother's questions of whether two adults were in the home at all times or whether the resource caregivers were open to voluntary continued contact with Mother post-termination were irrelevant to whether the permanent plan is in Children's best interests.

Notably, the Family Court permitted Mother to cross-examine one of the resource caregivers on issues related to the safety and appropriateness of the resource caregivers' home, including whether they allowed Father to come to the house, had to undergo a criminal background check, and had to ask other people to watch Children for them. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the cross-examination.

(2) Mother contends the record lacks clear and convincing evidence supporting findings of fact (FOF ) 95 and 96, which found:

95. [Mother] and [Father] are not presently willing and able to provide the Children with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a service plan.

96. It is not reasonably foreseeable that [Mother] and [Father] will become willing and able to provide the Children with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a service plan.

Mother contends she completed her services and made substantial progress in demonstrating her ability to provide a safe family home.

However, the Family Court did not clearly err as many unchallenged findings constitute substantial evidence supporting FOF 95 and 96. In re Doe, 95 Hawai‘i 183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001). Specifically, for over three years, DHS offered Mother services to help resolve her safety issues, FOF 77-78, 89, 104, 119, 133-34, 138-40, and 169-72; Mother fails to recognize and address her safety concerns and failed to meaningfully engage in services, FOF 55, 58, 74, 76-79, 119-21, 124, 137, 229, 237, 239-46, 248-58, and 260-63; Mother lacks insight into Children's needs and refuses to acknowledge their educational, medical, and psychological issues despite completing parenting classes, FOF 58, 68-70, 77-79, 111, 113-15, 120-21, 124, 132, 137-40, 142, 147, 153-59, 168-72, 183, 195-97, 211-14, 222-26, 235, 237-50, 252-57, and 261-64; Mother has a history of domestic violence relationships, and despite completing domestic services, she entered into another violent relationship, FOF 74-76, 78, 86-90, 119-21, 124-26, 129, 137-38, 157, 175-78, 232, 234, and 260; Mother failed to attend Children's appointments and was not consistent or attentive during visits, FOF 77-80, 113-18, 120-21, 139, 148-52, 159, 169-72, 183, 195-97, 200-01, 204, 208, 250-53, 256-57, and 265, and for over four years by the time trial concluded, FOF 64, and in that time, Mother was unable to parent Children and meet their needs, FOF 77-79.

(3) Mother contends the Family Court abused its discretion in terminating a related case in the middle of trial, where the cases were being tried together, and if she had known beforehand, she would have devoted more time to the instant case.

The record does not reflect, and Mother does not contend, that she objected to the amount of trial days remaining in her case or requested additional time to present her defense. Thus, she failed to preserve this argument. See State v. Moses, 102 Hawai‘i 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003) ("As a general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial, that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal[.]").

(4) Mother contends DHS failed to provide her reasonable reunification efforts and opportunities, arguing that (a) DHS should have offered her more time to work on reunification and visits due to Covid, (b) DHS hindered visitation by requiring a visitation contract, (c) DHS should have provided in-person visits despite the pandemic, (d) although Mother's and the resource caregivers' relationship soured, DHS allowed the resource caregivers to control appointments and visits, (e) DHS failed to provide recommended attachment-based services, as they were never delineated in Mother's service plans, (f) DHS provided no specific road map to demonstrate Mother's abilities, and (g) DHS failed to provide Mother a reasonable opportunity to attend Children's therapy sessions because it provided no referral or plan to do so. Relatedly, Mother challenges FOF 97, 103, 105, 106, and 107.³

While "DHS is under an obligation to provide a reasonable opportunity to parents through a service plan to reunify the family" and "to make reasonable efforts to reunite parent and child," an objection to DHS's reasonable...