In re Interest of MM
| Decision Date | 25 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | CAAP-21-0000542 |
| Citation | 151 Hawai‘i 167,509 P.3d 1130 (Table) |
| Parties | In the INTEREST OF M CHILDREN: MM, CM1, JM, CM2, PM, UBBM (FC-S NO. 17-00216) In the Interest of CM3 (FC-S NO. 19-00222) |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
On the briefs:
Rebecca S. Lester, for Mother-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Tae Chin Kim, for Father-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Maria F. Williams, Julio C. Herrera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellee, Department of Human Services.
(
Mother-Appellant/Cross-Appellee (Mother ) appeals and Father-Appellee/Cross-Appellant (Father ) cross-appeals from the Family Court of the First Circuit's (Family Court ) October 1, 2021 Orders Terminating Parental Rights.1
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by Mother and Father (collectively Parents ) and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Parents' arguments as follows, and affirm.
The Family Court may grant a motion to terminate parental rights where the following occurs:
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) § 587A-33(a) (2018).
We review the Family Court's findings of fact (FOF ) for clear error and will vacate only when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding, or despite substantial evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re Doe, 95 Hawai‘i 183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001). "Substantial evidence" is "credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Id. Unchallenged FOF are binding on appeal. In re Doe, 99 Hawai‘i 522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002). Likewise, we review conclusions of law (COL ) that present mixed questions of law and fact for clear error, which include determinations of whether a parent is willing and able to provide a safe family home and what is in a child's best interests. In re JM, 150 Hawai‘i 125, 137, 497 P.3d 140, 152 (App. 2021).
(1) Mother contends that Petitioner-Appellee/ Cross-Appellee Department of Human Services (DHS ) "failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that mother is not willing and able to provide a safe family home for [MM, CM1, JM, CM2, PM, UBBM, and CM3 (collectively Children )] even with the assistance of a service plan or in the foreseeable future" and that the "permanent plan with the goal of adoption to current resource caregiver is not in the Children's best interest." (Formatting altered.)
In doing so, Mother challenges FOF 84, 140-143, 146, 158, 160, 177-179, 183, 185, 187, 189, 190, and 192 and COL 12, 13, and 15-17. Mother indicates the bases for her objections to these FOF and COL as set forth in her argument as follows: (a) DHS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts because Mother required a Marshallese interpreter for her services, and DHS failed to provide one until 2020; (b) DHS failed to provide Mother written materials in Marshallese; (c) though DHS provided Mother a list of Marshallese therapists, none were willing to assist her; (d) Mother and Children miss each other; (e) DHS did not take into account her cognitive deficiencies by ensuring that service providers confirmed she understood her services; and (f) she believes reunification is in Children's best interests.
The undisputed FOF, however, indicate that Mother's services were explained to her with the assistance of a Marshallese interpreter, and she does not contend she was otherwise unable to understand them. FOF 147. Mother was inconsistent in participating in the services offered. She failed to complete outreach and counseling services, and did not attend these services because she forgot, overslept, or remembered too late. FOF 66, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, and 156.
Mother had a translator for her domestic violence services with Parents and Children Together (PACT ), but she failed to appear at eight sessions. She eventually declined to have an interpreter present, and PACT ultimately closed her case due to her non-attendance. FOF 150, 151. After DHS re-referred Mother to the PACT services and she completed them, she did not learn and integrate the skills offered. FOF 152. Mother had an interpreter for her parenting sessions with Comprehensive Counseling and Support Services (CCSS ), but CCSS closed her case due to her non-compliance. FOF 153, 154.
In October 2019, DHS referred Mother to Marshallese therapists, but Mother did not refer herself to the service provider until June 2021, one month before trial. FOF 159. The DHS-assigned social worker informed CCSS that Mother "would require more help and one-on-one" time, and Mother points to no evidence that DHS or service providers did not consider her cognitive abilities.
Finally, Mother's arguments that she and Children miss each other and that she believes it is in their...
To continue reading
Request your trial