KS v. RS

• Decision Date: 27 May 2022
• Docket Number: CAAP-19-0000871, CAAP-20-0000489
• Parties: KS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RS, Defendant/Appellee KS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RS, Defendant/Appellee
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

151 Hawai‘i 336

512 P.3d 702

KS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.RS, Defendant/Appellee

KS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.RS, Defendant/Appellee

CAAP-19-0000871, CAAP-20-0000489

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

MAY 27, 2022

On the briefs:

Sharla A. Manley for Plaintiff-Appellant

Rosa Flores (Law Office of Rosa Flores) for Defendant-Appellee

GINOZA, CHIEF JUDGE, WADSWORTH AND NAKASONE, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY NAKASONE, J.

This appeal considers whether, under Hawai‘i law, a family court may grant tie-breaking authority to one parent in a joint legal custody award, if the court determines that it is in the child's best interests. We hold that a family court is not precluded from ordering joint legal custody with tie-breaking authority to one parent based on the court's broad discretion, if it determines that doing so is in the child's best interest.

In this consolidated appeal,¹ Plaintiff-Appellant "KS" (Mother ) appeals from orders and a decree arising out of a trial regarding her divorce from Defendant-Appellee "RS" (Father ), entered by the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court ).² In CAAP-19-0000871, Mother appeals from the November 25, 2019 Decision and Order Re: Trial, Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, and Property Division Chart (Trial Order ); and the December 16, 2019 Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody (Divorce Decree ).³ In CAAP-20-0000489, Mother appeals from the June 29, 2020 Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend or Alter Decision and Order and Granting Defendant's Motion to Enforce Decree (Order Re: Post-Judgment Motions ).⁴

In CAAP-19-0000871, Mother raises twelve (12) points of error (POEs ), contending that the Family Court erred:

(1) in FOF 47 by determining that the Court could not order joint legal custody with tie-breaking authority;

(2) in FOF 47 by finding that it would not be in Child's best interest if either party has sole legal custody;

(3) by failing to apply the statutory factors for determining the "best interest of the child;"

(4) in COL 14 by concluding that "some" of Mother's behavior was "detrimental" to Child;

(5) in FOFs 59, 62-64 by making certain findings regarding a video of a time-sharing exchange of Child between Mother and Father;

(6) in COL 15 by determining that it is in the best interest of Child that the parties shall have joint legal and joint physical custody;

(7) in FOF 20 by finding that the parties could have joint custody if there was a neutral body to assist with making decisions;

(8) by "imposing a mandatory two-part dispute resolution process on the parents, who were ordered to share equally in the costs of this process, instead of awarding final decision-making authority to [Mother];" (9) in refusing to allow Mother to introduce stipulated exhibits, pursuant to a "personal policy" of the judge;

(10) in FOF 108 by finding that each side chose to withdraw several exhibits at the end of trial;

(11) in FOF 101 and COL 31 , in which the Family Court imposed an "erroneous and inequitable equalization payment on [Mother] based on [Father's] undisclosed and unsubstantiated debt" for attorney's fees and a student loan "which was not supported by competent evidence;" and

(12) in COLs 22 and 32 where the Court "denied spousal support to [Mother] as an offset" for the "erroneous and inequitable equalization payment set forth in COL 31 , without first calculating the amount of spousal support to which [Mother] was entitled to under [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS )] § 580-47(a), utilizing the factors and principles set forth in Wong v. Wong," 87 Hawai‘i 475, 485, 960 P.2d 145, 155 (App. 1998), "which would have outweighed the equalization payment that the Court arrived at."

In CAAP-20-0000489, Mother raises seventeen POEs of which twelve are identical to the POEs in CAAP-19-0000871. The following five additional POEs⁵ pertain to the disposition of "Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Decision and Order After Trial filed November 25, 2019, and to Stay Execution of Order and for Hearing Pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 62(b), Hawai‘i Family Court Rules" (Motion to Alter ), in which Mother contends the Family Court erred:

(13) in refusing to grant Mother's Motion to Alter;

(14) in concluding as a matter of law that it could not grant Mother's Motion to Alter because an appeal was pending;

(15) in COLs 5-7 in the September 21, 2020 FOFs/COLs setting forth the reasoning why the Family Court took no further action on the Motion to Alter;

(16) in FOF 5 in the September 21, 2020 FOFs/COLs by making a finding of an erroneous filing date; and

(17) in not granting Mother's Motion to Alter to make Father responsible for health care coverage for Child, and erred in COL 21 in the March 9, 2020 FOFs/COLs where Mother was made responsible for Child's health coverage.

As to CAAP-19-0000871, we vacate in part with respect to the dispute resolution provisions of the award of joint custody, and the determinations regarding spousal support. As to CAAP-20-0000489, we vacate the Order Re: Post-Judgment Motions to the extent it did not address Mother's Motion to Alter.

I. BACKGROUND

Mother and Father were married in 2006 and separated in 2017. Mother and Father are the parents of Child, who was born in 2014 during the marriage. The Complaint for Divorce was filed on January 30, 2018, and trial was held on October 28 and 29, 2019. Following trial, the Family Court filed: 1) the November 25, 2019 Decision and Order; 2) the December 16, 2019 Divorce Decree; and 3) the March 9, 2020 FOFs/COLs.⁶

In the Divorce Decree, the Family Court: 1) granted the divorce; 2) ordered joint legal and joint physical custody to Father and Mother; 3) set forth the joint physical custody schedule, with exchange times and locations, and set alternating holiday schedules; 4) directed Father and Mother to mutually agree to division of school breaks, and if no agreement could be reached, discussion with a Parenting Coordinator; 5) ordered Father to pay child support to Mother; 6) addressed other issues such as child-related expenses, education and educational expenses, and extracurricular expenses; 7) ordered Father to provide for Child's medical and dental insurance coverage; 8) declined to award alimony to either parent; 9) discussed award of Father and Mother's assets, insurance, and individual debts; 10) waived the equalization payment Mother would have had to pay Father, in lieu of an award of alimony;⁷ 11) ordered the parties to file separate taxes for 2019, and going forward; and 12) ordered that each party be responsible for their own attorney's fees and costs.

Mother timely appealed from the Trial Order and Divorce Decree in CAAP-19-0000871 on December 23, 2019, as a self-represented litigant. Mother submitted the Motion to Alter on December 5, 2019, but it was not heard until March 11, 2020, along with Father's motion to enforce the Divorce Decree. At the March 11, 2020 hearing, per Mother's request, the hearing on her Motion to Alter was continued to May 20, 2020. No transcript was requested for the May 20, 2020 hearing. The Order Re: Post-Judgment Motions filed on June 29, 2020 contains the disposition of the motions from the May 20, 2020 hearing, and reflects that the Family Court took "no further action" and did not render a decision as to Mother's Motion to Alter, citing the pending appeal in CAAP-19-0000871. Instead, the Family Court granted Father's motion to enforce the Divorce Decree. On July 29, 2020, under CAAP-20-0000489, Mother filed a Notice of Appeal from the June 29, 2020 Order Re: Post-Judgment Motions.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Family Court Decisions

"Generally, the family court possesses wide discretion in making its decisions and those decisions will not be set aside unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion." Hamilton v. Hamilton, 138 Hawai‘i 185, 197, 378 P.3d 901, 913 (2016) (citing Kakinami v. Kakinami, 127 Hawai‘i 126, 136, 276 P.3d 695, 705 (2012) (quoting Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai‘i 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360 (2006) )).

It is well established that a family court abuses its discretion where "(1) the family court disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant; (2) the family court failed to exercise its equitable discretion; or (3) the family court's decision clearly exceeds the bounds of reason."

Kakinami, 127 Hawai‘i at 155-56, 276 P.3d at 724-25 (citations omitted). "[T]he family court is given much leeway in its examination of the reports concerning a child's care, custody, and welfare, and its conclusions in this regard, if supported by the record and not clearly erroneous, must stand on appeal." Fisher, 111 Hawai‘i at 46, 137 P.3d at 360 (citation omitted).

B. Family Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

"The family court's findings of facts [sic] are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, while the court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard." Gordon v. Gordon, 135 Hawai‘i 340, 348, 350 P.3d 1008, 1016 (2015) (citing Kakinami, 127 Hawai‘i at 136, 276 P.3d at 705 )).

A [finding of fact] is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite substantial evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is nonetheless left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. "Substantial evidence" is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion.

Kakinami, 127 Hawai‘i at 136, 276 P.3d at 705.

"[W]hen a conclusion of law presents mixed questions of fact and law, we review it under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard because the court's conclusions are dependent on the facts and circumstances of each individual case." JW v. RJ, 146 Hawai‘i 581, 585, 463 P.3d 1238, 1242 (App. 2020) (citing Estate of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai‘i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007) ). "A conclusion of law that is supported by the trial...