In re NF
Docket Number | CAAP-22-0000470,CAAP-22-0000471 |
Decision Date | 09 June 2023 |
Parties | IN THE INTEREST OF NF and AF IN THE INTEREST OF HG |
Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (FC-S NOS 17-00211, 20-00192)
Herbert Y. Hamada, for Respondent-Appellant.
Stephanie W. Batzer, for Court Appointed Special Advocate Program.
Gay M Tanaka, Julio C. Herrera, Deputy Attorneys General, Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawai#i, for the Department of Human Services.
(
In these consolidated appeals Respondent-Appellant Father appeals from the: (1) Order Terminating Parental Rights over NF and AF (the Twins) entered by the Family Court of the First Circuit on August 1, 2022, in FC-S No. 17-00211 (the First Case), and; (2) Order Terminating Parental Rights over HF[1]entered by the family court on August 1, 2022, in FC-S No. 20-00192 (the Second Case).[2] Father is the natural and legal father of the Twins,[3] and the alleged natural father of HF (collectively, Children).[4] For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Mother gave birth to Children's biological sister, EF, in 2016. On July 29, 2016, Petitioner-Appellee Department of Human Services (DHS) received a report of threat of abuse and threatened neglect of EF. DHS didn't immediately file a petition for foster custody because Mother and Father (Parents) agreed to participate in Intensive Home-Based Services (IHBS); live with paternal grandmother; attend all medical appointments for themselves and for EF; and maintain contact with an IHBS case worker. Parents stopped participating in IHBS after two weeks and left paternal grandmother's residence with EF. DHS then confirmed a threat of abuse to and neglect of EF and filed a petition for temporary foster custody upon location, which the family court granted on August 31, 2016. EF died on September 1, 2016, before she could be located. An autopsy and investigation were conducted, but the cause and manner of EF's death were undetermined.
The Twins were born in 2017. DHS filed a petition for temporary foster custody of the Twins soon after their birth. The family court granted the petition. The Twins' date of entry into foster care was November 28, 2017. Father appealed. We affirmed. In re NF and AF, No. CAAP-18-0000948, 2019 WL 6830828 (Haw. App. Dec. 13, 2019) (SDO). The supreme court rejected Father's application for writ of certiorari. In re NF and AF, No. SCWC-18-0000948, 2020 WL 1675713 (Haw. Apr. 6, 2020).
HF was born in 2020. DHS filed a petition for temporary foster custody of HF soon after her birth. The family court granted the petition. HF's date of entry into foster care was January 8, 2021.
DHS then filed petitions to terminate Parents' parental rights as to all the Children. The family court conducted a hearing on April 28, May 23, and July 18, 2022. Mother did not appear at the hearing. Father attended the April 28 and July 18, 2022 hearings and testified on his own behalf. The family court entered orders terminating parental rights on August 1, 2022. These appeals by Father followed.
Relevant to these appeals, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 587A-33 "provides that the family court shall terminate a parent's parental rights if it finds [by clear and convincing evidence] that: (1) the parent is not able to provide a safe family home for the child now or within a reasonable period of time; [and] (2) the proposed permanent plan is in the best interests of the child[.]" In re R Child., 145 Hawai#i 477, 483, 454 P.3d 418, 424 (2019) (statutory citations omitted).
Generally, the family court possesses wide discretion in making its decisions and those decision[s] will not be set aside unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion. Thus, we 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. at 482, 454 P.3d at 423 (citation omitted).
Father's opening brief does not comply with Rule 11 of the Rules Expediting Child Protective Appeals. However, we attempt to decide cases on the merits, where possible. O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai#i 383, 386, 885 P.2d 361, 364 (1994). Accordingly, we address what we discern to be Father's arguments on appeal.
Father challenges a number of the family court's findings of fact, and argues that the family court erred by considering the circumstances of EF's death. The label of a finding of fact (FOF) or a conclusion of law (COL) does not determine the standard of review. See Crosby v. State Dep't of Budget &Fin., 76 Hawai#i 332, 340, 876 P.2d 1300, 1308 (1994). The question whether a determination is an FOF or a COL is a question of law. Thus, the accuracy of the label affixed by the family court is freely reviewable by a reviewing court. Kilauea Neighborhood Ass'n v. Land Use Comm'n, 7 Haw.App. 227, 229, 751 P.2d 1031, 1034 (1988) (citation omitted).
In re JM, 150 Hawai#i 125, 137, 497 P.3d 140, 152 (App. 2021) (cleaned up) (quoting In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i 183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001)).
In the First Case, Father challenges the following determinations by the family court:
To continue reading
Request your trial