In re: S.L.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-JAN-2025
09:33 AM
Dkt. 86 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. 22-00155)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Mother-Appellant/Cross-Appellee K.M. (Mother) appeals

and Father-Appellee/Cross-Appellant J.L. (Father) cross-appeals

from the April 22, 2024 Order Terminating Parental Rights

(Termination Order) entered in the Family Court of the First

Circuit1 (Family Court), which terminated Mother's and Father's

(Parents') respective parental rights to their child, S.L.

(Child).

On appeal, Mother contends the Family Court erred in

terminating her parental rights because: (1) it failed to

explore legal guardianship as an alternative to adoption; (2) the

March 6, 2024 Permanent Plan (Permanent Plan) prepared by

1
The Honorable Rebecca A. Copeland presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellee Department of Human Services

(DHS) does not explain why seven months is a reasonable time

period to complete Child's adoption; and (3) the Permanent Plan

fails to state whether Child's current foster placement with

Resource Caregivers (RCGs) would be his post-termination

permanent placement, which deprives Parents of an opportunity to

object, and prevents the Family Court from making a proper

determination as to the best interests of Child.2 Echoing

Mother's third point of error, Father contends that the Family
Court clearly erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence

that the Permanent Plan is in the Child's best interest because

it fails to identify a proposed permanent placement. Parents

also challenge the Family Court's Findings of Fact (FOFs) 56, 58,

61, 71, 73, 165, 167, 168, and 173, and Conclusions of Law (COLs)

25, 35, and 36.

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, we resolve Parents'

arguments as follows:

(1) Mother contends that because the Family Court in
FC-G No. 22-1-0073 awarded legal guardianship for four of her

other children, DHS must have provided a compelling reason why it

was in their best interests, which the Family Court failed to

explore in this case when it decided adoption was in Child's best

interests. In conjunction with this argument, Mother challenges

2
We liberally construe Parents' respective abbreviated opening
briefs as collectively raising these three points of error.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

FOF 168,3 which she claims is clearly erroneous because there was

testimony that adoption was not in her other children's best

interests, as their resource caregiver did not want to adopt.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 587A-32(a) (2018)

provides:
§ 587A-32 Permanent Plan. (a) The permanent
plan shall:

(1) State whether the permanency goal for the child
will be achieved through adoption, legal
guardianship, or permanent custody;
(2) Establish a reasonable period of time by which
the adoption or legal guardianship shall be
finalized;

(3) Document:

(A) A compelling reason why legal guardianship
or permanent custody is in the child's
best interests if adoption is not the
goal; or

(B) A compelling reason why permanent custody
is in the child's best interests if
adoption or legal guardianship is not the
goal;
(4) Establish other related goals, including those
pertaining to the stability of the child's
placement; education; health; therapy;
counseling; relationship with the child's birth
family, including visits, if any; cultural
connections; and preparation for independent
living;

(5) If a child has reached the age of fourteen,
describe the services needed to assist the child
with the transition from foster care to
independent living; and
(6) Describe the methods for achieving the goals and
objectives set forth in paragraphs (4) and (5).

(Emphasis added).

3
FOF 168 states:
168. Based on the totality of the credible
evidence and testimony, the court does not find the
DHS acted improperly in seeking to terminate the
parental rights over the child subject to this case,
rather than seek legal guardianship as it did for any
of the prior children who were also involved in foster
custody cases.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

HRS § 587A-30 (2018) similarly states, inter alia, that

if a child is not expected to return to a safe family home, the

child's permanent placement out of the family home shall be "in

the following order of preference: (i) Adoption; (ii) Legal

guardianship; or (iii) Other permanent out-of-home placement[.]"

HRS § 587A-30(b)(5)(B).

Thus, Hawaii's Child Protective Act requires a

compelling reason when a permanent plan states a goal of legal

guardianship or permanent custody over adoption, not the other
way around. Here, Mother argues that there must be a compelling

reason why guardianship should also be the goal for Child, but

she fails to identify one. Moreover, there was ample clear and

convincing evidence in the record concerning, inter alia,

unresolved substance abuse and domestic violence, which supported

a conclusion that neither Parent was able to provide a safe

family home, or would become able to do so within a reasonable

period, and therefore the Permanent Plan of adoption was in

Child's best interests. Accordingly, we conclude that Mother's

first point of error is without merit.

(2) Mother argues that the Permanent Plan fails to

explain why seven months from the date of the Permanent Plan is a

reasonable period to finalize Child's adoption, as required by

HRS § 587A-32(a). As set forth above, HRS § 587A-32(a)(2)

required that a permanent plan establish a reasonable period of

time for the adoption or guardianship to be finalized, but does

not mandate specific parameters for determining the reasonable

time. In this case, it appears that the proposed adoption was to

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

be finalized within five months after an April 17, 2024 hearing

on the termination of parental rights. The September 2024 date

allowed time for DHS to make a final decision regarding the

adoption and complete various requirements and documentation

before the first post-termination permanency hearing required

under HRS § 587A-31(a) (2018). Mother presents no specific

argument and cites no evidence in the record supporting a

determination that this was not a reasonable amount of time. We

cannot conclude that this argument provides a basis for appellate
relief.

(3) Mother argues that, in the Permanent Plan, DHS

must unambiguously identify who DHS believes should adopt Child.

It appears, however, that Mother recognizes that this is not a

requirement stated in the Hawai#i Child Protection Act or any

case law thereon. Mother contends that approval of the Permanent

Plan without the identification of the proposed placement was not

in Child's best interest because Parents would be denied an

opportunity to present evidence that a particular proposed

placement was not in Child's best interests. However, the plain

language of HRS § 587A-32 requires only that the permanent plan

state "whether the permanency goal for the child will be achieved

through adoption, legal guardianship, or permanent custody,"

(emphasis added), and nothing in the statutory language supports

a conclusion that it must also identify a specific permanent

placement. Indeed, the case Mother cites, In the Interest of SP,

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2014 WL 1658601 (Haw. App. Apr. 25, 2014) (SDO),

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

weighs against her argument. Therein, this court held:
Specification of adoptive parents is not required in a
proposed permanent plan under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS),
§ 587A–32 (Supp. 2013). In addition, under HRS
§ 587A–33(b)(3) (Supp. 2013), after the [Family Court]
terminates parental rights, terminates the existing service
plan, and revokes foster custody, the permanent custody of
the child shall be awarded to an appropriate authorized
agency. Thus, the family court cannot approve a permanent
plan that specifies adoptive parents because it is contrary
to HRS § 587A–33(b)(3).
. . . .
. . . [T]he issue of the permanent adoption of SP is
not determined until after termination of Mother's
parental rights and approval of a permanent plan and
approval by the [Family Court] after a permanency
hearing.

Id. at *1-2 (emphases added); see also Interest of K.K., CAAP-23-

0000058, 2024 WL 490880, at *3 n.4 (Haw. App. Feb. 8, 2024) (SDO)

(noting that specification of adoptive parents is not required in

a proposed permanent plan).

Though it appears that a pre-termination permanent plan

may identify a proposed permanent placement as part of its

permanency goal, it is not required to do so, as the final

determination of permanent placement is not required to be

decided until after termination. See Interest of AB, 145 Hawai#i

498, 516–17, 454 P.3d 439, 457–58 (2019) ("[U]pon termination of

parental rights, discretion to determine an appropriate custodian

is vested in DHS.") (quoting In re Doe, 100 Hawai#i 335, 346, 60

P.3d 285, 296 (2002)).

We have carefully reviewed each of Parents' related

challenges to specific FOFs and COLs, and we conclude that the

Family Court did not clearly err in FOFs 56, 58, 61, 71, 73, 165,

167, 168, and 173, and COLs 25, 35, and 36 are not wrong.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For these reasons, the Family Court's April 22, 2024

Termination Order is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 15, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Herbert Y. Hamada
for Mother-Appellant/ /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Cross-Appellee. Associate Judge

Crystal M. Asano /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Father-Appellee/ Associate Judge
Cross-Appellant.

Joy S. Wills,
Julio C. Herrera,
Erin K.S. Torres,
Kurt J. Shimamoto,
Deputy Attorneys General,
Department of the Attorney
General,
for Petitioner-Appellee/
Cross-Appellee.

7