In re: T.J. I.T., A.T.1, A.T.2, and K.T.2.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
28-FEB-2025
08:49 AM
Dkt. 49 MO
NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTEREST OF T.J. I.T., A.T.1, A.T.2, and K.T.2

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. FC-S 23-00105)

and
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTEREST OF L.T.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. FC-S 24-00081)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

K.T. (Father) is the legal father and J.J. (Mother) is
the natural mother of I.T., A.T.1, A.T.2, K.T.2, and L.T.
(collectively, Children). Mother is the natural mother and K.D.
is the natural and legal father of T.J.1 Father appeals from the
September 9, 2024 "Orders Concerning Child Protective Act"
entered in FC-S No. 23-00105 and FC-S No. 24-00081 by the Family
Court of the First Circuit.2 The orders awarded the state
Department of Human Services (DHS) foster custody over I.T.,

1
T.J. was involved in one of the underlying cases but is not a
subject of these appeals.
2
The Honorable Lesley N. Maloian presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

A.T.1, A.T.2, K.T.2, and L.T. and approved a December 5, 2023
Family Service Plan. The family court erred by overruling
Father's objection when DHS asked a doctor for her opinion on
T.J.'s and I.T.'s credibility, but we conclude the error was
harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the family court orders.
On December 7, 2023, DHS petitioned to place T.J.,
I.T., A.T.1, A.T.2, and K.T.2 in foster custody, creating FC-S
No. 23-00105. The family court held a hearing on September 9,
2024. The Order[] Concerning Child Protective Act was entered on
September 9, 2024. Father appealed, creating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
The family court entered findings of fact (FOF) and conclusions
of law (COL) on October 10, 2024, consistent with Hawai#i Family
Court Rules (HFCR) Rule 52(a).
On June 18, 2024, DHS petitioned to place L.T. in
foster custody, creating FC-S No. 24-00081. The family court
held a hearing on September 9, 2024. The Order[] Concerning
Child Protective Act was entered on September 9, 2024. Father
appealed, creating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. The family court entered
FOFs and COLs on October 10, 2024, consistent with HFCR Rule 52.
We consolidated the appeals. Father challenges several
FOFs and one COL entered in both cases. We review findings of
fact under the clearly erroneous standard, and conclusions of law
under the right/wrong standard. Est. of Klink ex rel. Klink v.
State, 113 Hawai#i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007). We review
a mixed finding of fact and conclusion of law under the clearly
erroneous standard because it implicates the facts and
circumstances of the case. Id. A ruling supported by the trial
court's findings and correctly applying the law will not be
overturned. Id.
Unchallenged FOFs are binding on appeal. In re Doe, 99
Hawai#i 522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002). Father has not
challenged these FOFs:3

3
Numbering is from FC-S No. 23-00105; identical FOFs were entered
in FC-S No. 24-00081.

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

18. On [October 19, 2023], the DHS met with [Father]
in the [Kapi#olani Medical Center for Women and Children]
Cafeteria. [Father] confirmed he was a registered sex
offender, and that his case was due to him having sex with a
fourteen (14) year old, when he was twenty (20) years of
age. Father reported the minor told him she was sixteen
(16) years of age. Father reported, the judge told him that
if he had been a year younger, he would not have been
convicted for sexual assault. Father reported he completed
the recommended treatment for his probation.

. . . .
43. On [November 8, 2023], the DHS spoke to
[resource care giver (RCG)] who reported she asked the older
girls to bathe themselves and she waited outside of the
bathroom for the girls to finish. [T.J.] became hysterical
and was screaming and crying that nobody believed her.
[RCG] asked [T.J.] what happened and she reported [Father]
touched her vagina (aka "flower") while Mother was
working[.] . . . She also disclosed that he made her touch
herself and then he stuck his finger into her "flower"
[vagina] and it hurt.

44. The DHS referred [T.J.], [I.T.,] and Mother for
sex abuse treatment with Child and Family Services ("CFS")
Ohana Sex Abuse Treatment Program.

45. The DHS spoke with VCM [(Voluntary Case
Management)] case manager, Ms. Tomi Tangonan, who confirmed
that [T.J.] disclosed sex abuse by [Father] to her and that
she was not [T.J.]'s therapist as reported by [K.D.]

. . . .
48. On November 9, 2023, the DHS met with all five
(5) children [(T.J., I.T, A.T.1, A.T.2, and K.T.2)] with HPD
Detective Monma. The DHS met with [T.J.] alone with
Detective Monma. [T.J.] disclosed that when the family was
living in their old home . . . , [Father] touched her flower
and then stuck his finger inside of her. When asked where
Mother was, she reported that Mother was at work. [T.J.]
reported that she did not want to return to the care of
Mother and [Father]. The DHS also met with [I.T.] alone and
she disclosed that [Father] also touched her and pointed to
her vaginal area.

49. On November 9, 2023, the DHS logged [T.J.]'s
disclosure as another report of alleged sex abuse by
[Father] to minor [T.J.]
50. The DHS met with [RCG] and she reported that
[I.T.] disclosed to her that [Father] told [I.T.] that if
she told anyone, he would take her mother away and blame her
because she was touching herself.

. . . .
53. . . . The DHS referred [Father] to sex offender
treatment with CFS Ohana Sex Abuse Treatment Program.
54. On November 20, 2023, [T.J.] and [I.T.] were
forensically interviewed for the second time. [T.J.]

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

disclosed sex abuse by [Father] during her interview, while
[I.T.] did not. Later in the day, the DHS spoke with [RCG].
During this telephone conversation, [I.T.] came onto the
phone, crying and reported that she was afraid of the CJC
[(Children's Justice Center)] interviewer, and didn't tell
that "her daddy had touched her flower" because her daddy
told her that if she told anyone he would take away her
mother and blame it on her.
. . . .

56. On November 21, 2023, the DHS spoke to
Dr. Giovannoni, [Father]'s previous sex offender treatment
provider. Dr. Giovannoni reported he reluctantly clinically
discharged [Father], and still had concerns. [Father] did
not appear to have fully engaged in treatment and was just
going through the motions to satisfy his probation. He met
with Mother and completed a safety plan with Mother
regarding [Father] crossing sexual boundaries.
Dr. Giovannoni recommended that the Prosecutor's Office be
informed of [T.J.]'s disclosures and [Father] complete
another sex offender assessment.

. . . .
66. On February 6, 2024, the GAL [guardian ad litem]
filed his Guardian Ad Litem's Settlement/Pretrial Statement.
The GAL argued . . . [I.T., A.T.1, A.T.2 and K.T.2]'s
psychological and physical health or welfare has been harmed
or is subject to threatened harm by the acts of omissions of
the children's family, specifically [Mother] and [Father].
The GAL also argued that [T.J.]'s psychological and physical
health or welfare has been harmed or is subject to
threatened harm by the acts of [sic] omissions of the
child's family, specifically [Mother] and [Father].

. . . .
72. The MDT [(Child and Family Multidisciplinary
Team)] Conference found the children have been exposed to
domestic violence, prenatal substance abuse, and have not
been provided adequate shelter, education, physical care, or
medical care. [T.J.] and [I.T.] have disclosed sexual abuse
perpetrated on them by [Father]. [T.J.] had a clear
disclosure regarding the sexual abuse at the CJC and the
sisters have disclosed to their previous RCG that [Father]
has sexually abused them, and they witnessed domestic
violence between [Father] and Mother.[sic]

. . . .
74. The MDT Conference Report recommended regarding
placement: The children remain in their current resource
care placement homes with the possibility of relicensing the
home of maternal uncle and aunt. No children (including the
unborn child that is expected by Mother in June 2024) should
be placed or live with [Father] and Mother. [Father] should
not have any contact with children at this time.

. . . .

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

78. On March 25, 2024 and March 27, 2024, [Father]
underwent a Psychosexual Risk Assessment. The MSI II
Overview of the Psychosexual indicates the following:
That [Father's] test taking behavior indicates he was
defensive on testing and the information is limited.
"He [sic] is defensive about expressing interest in
sex, which suggests he is trying to "look good"
sexually on the examination. He may be attempting to
convince the evaluator that sine [sic] he has little
interest in sex, he has to [sic] sexual problems. He
was inconsistent in his response to the repeated item
which refers to having committed a sex offense. He
acknowledges some type of sexual behavior occurred,
i.e., he did not plan it, it was an accident, the
person acted older, he made a mistake, etc. [sic]
. . . .

128. On November 9, 2023, [T.J.] disclosed to her RCG
that [Father] touched her "flower" (as she called her
vagina) stuck his finger in and out of her and it hurt.

129. On November 9, 2023, the DHS met with the
Children at the home of the RCG home with Honolulu Police
Department ("HPD") Detective Monma. The DHS met with [T.J.]
alone and she disclosed that when the family was living in
their old home . . . , [Father] had touched her "flower" and
then he stuck his finger inside of her. The DHS also met
with [I.T.] alone and she disclosed that [Father] had also
touched her and pointed to her vagina area. [I.T.] also
disclosed to the resource care giver that [Father] told her
that if she told anyone, he would take away her mother from
her and blame her that she was touching herself.
. . . .

131. On November 20, 2023, [T.J.] and [I.T.]
participated in a forensic interview at the CJC. [T.J.]
disclosed sex abuse by [Father] during the interview, while
[I.T.] did not. Later after the interview, while the DHS
was talking to the resource care giver on the phone, [I.T.]
came on the phone crying and said that she was afraid of the
interviewer, that "her [sic] daddy had touched her "flower",
and that he told her if she told anyone he would take away
her mother and blame it on her.

132. On November 21, 2023, the DHS spoke with
Dr. Joseph Giovannoni ("Dr. Giovannoni"), [Father]'s
previous sex offender provider. Dr. Giovannoni reluctantly,
clinically discharged [Father] but had continued concerns
because [Father] did not appear to have fully engaged in
treatment and was just going through the motions to satisfy
his probation. Dr. Giovannoni had met with Mother and
completed a safety plan with her regarding [Father] and the
crossing of sexual boundaries. Dr. Giovannoni recommended
that the Prosecutor's Office be informed of [T.J.]'s
disclosure and that [Father] complete another sex offender
assessment.

133. On November 24, 2023, the DHS confirmed the
following harms or threatened harms to the Children:
(1) sexual abuse to [T.J.] and [I.T.] by [Father];

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

(2) threat of sexual abuse to the Children by [Father] and
Mother; [and] (3) threat of neglect to the Children by
[Father] and Mother[.] . . .

134. On February 22, 2024, a Multidisciplinary Team
("MDT") meeting was convened at the DHS' request that
included various professionals, including a pediatrician, a
psychologist, a nurse, and an independent social worker not
employed by the DHS. The purpose of the MDT was to
(1) assist in the development of an appropriate service plan
for the family; and (2) assist in case review/direction and
the current status of the case.
135. The February 22, 2024, MDT found that due to the
CJC interview with [T.J.], [Father]'s past conviction of
sexually abusing a minor, Parents' lack of engagement in
services, and Mother's refusal to hold [Father] responsible
for sexually abusing [T.J.] and [I.T.], neither parent had
demonstrated the ability to provide a safe and protective
home for the Children.
136. The February 22, 2024, MDT recommended that no
children should reside with [Father] and Mother until they
can demonstrate safe and protective caregiving abilities.
137. On April 12, 2024, another MDT meeting was
convened to address [Father]'s psychosexual assessment as
well as to continue to (1) assist in the development of an
appropriate service plan for the family; and (2) assist in
case review/direction and the current status of the case.

138. The April 12, 2024, MDT found no substantial
change in the protective stance of Mother and [Father]
regarding the sexual abuse disclosed by [T.J.] and [I.T.].
Both parents continue to deny that any sexual abuse occurred
and therefore, the risk of further sexual abuse has not been
addressed. [Father]'s most recent psychosexual evaluation
indicates positive impression management and defensiveness,
elevated risk for child molestation, poor impulse control,
difficulty with authority, and conflict in interpersonal
relationships. The continued diagnosis of antisocial
personality disorder indicates a high treatment resistant
criminal mindset established over time. These results are
consistent with Dr. Giovannoni's statement that emphasizes a
reluctance to provide clinical discharge as the prior
treatment episode did not seem to effect substantial changes
in the attitudes and beliefs that drive behavior, and that
the likelihood to re-offend was still significant.

(Footnotes omitted).
Father challenges FOF no. 58 (in both cases):

58. On November 24, 2023, sex abuse to [T.J.] by her
mother's boyfriend, [Father], was confirmed; Sex abuse of
[I.T.] by her father [Father] was confirmed; Threat of sex
abuse to [I.T., A.T.1, A.T.2, and K.T.2] by their parents,
[Father] and [Mother] was confirmed; Threatened neglect of
[T.J., I.T., A.T.1, A.T.2, and K.T.2] by their mother,
[Mother], and mother's boyfriend/children's father [Father]
was confirmed[.]

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

Father argues this finding doesn't state the name of
the person who made these confirmations. Father's argument is
not persuasive because the findings are directly supported by
DHS's December 5, 2023 Safe Family Home Report prepared by social
worker Kaleimomi Cezar, admitted as Exhibit 2. Cezar testified
and was subject to cross-examination. Hawaii Revised Statute
(HRS) § 587A-18(d)(2018). The family court qualified her as an
expert in social work and child protective and child welfare
services, and found she was credible. FOF no. 58 was not clearly
erroneous.
Father challenges FOF no. 73 (in both cases) in part:

73. . . . There were clear disclosures of sexual
abuse by [Father] on November 20, 2023, during the CJC
interviews.

Father argues I.T. disclosed no sexual abuse during her
November 20, 2023 CJC interview. She didn't. But DHS's Safe
Family Home Report states that after the interview ended, I.T.
spontaneously said "her daddy had touched her flower" and he told
her "if she told anyone he would take away her mother and blame
it on her." Father is correct that I.T.'s disclosure happened
after the formal interview ended, but the family court's error
was harmless because the record has evidence that I.T. disclosed
sex abuse by Father on November 20, 2023.
Father challenges FOF no. 88 (in both cases) in part:

88. . . . The Court denied [Father]'s request for
. . . a copy of his psychosexual evaluation.

Father doesn't dispute the finding, but argues the
family court abused its discretion by denying him a copy of his
psychosexual evaluation because he "has the right to have another
psychosexual evaluator review his evaluation." A court abuses
its discretion if it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or
disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the
substantial detriment of a party. Est. of Klink, 113 Hawai#i at
352, 152 P.3d at 524. The family court ordered that all

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

evaluations be given to Father's counsel. Father could have
reviewed the evaluation with counsel and asked for a review by
another evaluator. He doesn't explain how not having his own
copy of the evaluation deprived him of a chance to have another
evaluator review it. The family court acted within its
discretion by denying Father's request for another copy.
Father challenges FOF no. 95 in FC-S No. 23-00105,
which is FOF no. 107 in FC-S No. 24-00081, in part:

95. At the conclusion of the GAL's testimony, the
parties gave brief closing arguments and the Court found by
a preponderance of the evidence that based upon the reports
submitted pursuant to HRS §§ 587A-7 and 587A-18 and the
record herein, that there is an adequate basis to sustain
the Petition in that the Children are children whose
physical or psychological health or welfare has been harmed
or is subject to threatened harm by the acts or omissions of
the Children's family; (2.)[sic] The DHS is awarded foster
custody over the children[.]

Father argues there was insufficient evidence he
sexually abused T.J. and I.T.: no evidence about the dates the
alleged sex abuse occurred; I.T. at first denied sex abuse; and
T.J. did not disclose sex abuse during her initial interviews.
FOF nos. 95/107 are supported by unchallenged FOF nos. 43, 45,
48, 49, 50, and 54, and by the testimony of DHS social workers
Cezar and Renee San Nicolas, William Gillespie, whom the family
court qualified as an expert in sex offender polygraph
examination, and Francisco Najera, Ph.D., all of whom the court
found to be credible. FOF nos. 95/107 were not clearly
erroneous.
Father challenges FOF no. 105 in FC-S No. 23-00105:
"[T.J.]'s and [I.T.]'s disclosures of sex abuse by [Father] were
consistent and credible." Father argues T.J. did not disclose
sex abuse in her first interview with the police, I.T. did not
disclose sex abuse in her CJC interviews, and when I.T. was
interviewed by CJC she said Parents never harmed her or T.J. FOF
no. 105 is supported by the family court's unchallenged findings
that T.J. and I.T. had disclosed sex abuse by Father multiple
times to multiple people. Father denied sexually abusing T.J.

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and I.T. but the family court found him "not a credible
witness[.]" "It is well-settled that an appellate court will not
pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and
the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of
fact." In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i 183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001).
FOF no. 105 was not clearly erroneous.
Father challenges FOF no. 116 in FC-S No. 23-00105,
which is FOF no. 126 in FC-S No. 24-00081:

116. [Father]'s current involvement with child
protective/welfare services and the family court is due to
his sex abuse of [T.J.] and [I.T.] and domestic violence
with Mother, which directly caused the Children to be
subject to the abuse and threat of abuse and neglect.

Father argues DHS only became involved because K.T.2
suffered a seizure, and there is no evidence that domestic
violence occurred in Children's presence. The family court
found, and Father doesn't dispute, that Children's Aunty took
K.T.2 to an emergency room with a high fever and seizures on
October 18, 2023. DHS met with Mother and Father on October 19,
2023. On October 20, 2023, Aunty told DHS that Father and Mother
"have a history of domestic violence." DHS also met with K.D.
(T.J.'s father) who stated he wasn't letting T.J. have contact
with Father because of an ongoing investigation by HPD Detective
Izuka. Detective Izuka gave DHS a copy of T.J.'s forensic
interview on October 24, 2023. DHS's further investigation
revealed evidence that Father had sexually abused T.J. and I.T.
The family court became involved on December 7, 2023, when DHS
filed the Petition for Temporary Foster Custody in FC-S No. 23-
00105. FOF nos. 116/126 were not clearly erroneous.
Father challenges FOF no. 119 in FC-S No. 23-00105:

119. [Father] sexually abused [T.J.] and [I.T.]

The family court made a similar finding in FC-S No. 24-
00081, FOF no. 129, that "[Father] sexually abused [L.T.]'s
siblings [T.J.] and [I.T.]" Father argues there was substantial
evidence that K.D. coached T.J. to lie about Father sexually

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

abusing her. FOF nos. 119 and 129 are supported by the family
court's unchallenged findings and substantial evidence in the
record. They were not clearly erroneous.
Father challenges FOF nos. 140, 143, and 144 in FC-S
No. 23-00105, which are FOF nos. 150, 153, and 154 in FC-S
No. 24-00081:

140. On May 22, 2024, [Father] participated in a
polygraph examination with William Gillespie
("Mr. Gillespie"). The polygraph examination results showed
no deception was indicated to the relevant questions. The
polygraph exam was valid in regards to manner and method of
how it was conducted and as to the results. It was
conducted on a properly functioning instrument, [Father] was
properly interviewed, and [Father] produced usable data to
make a proper conclusion.
The limitation to polygraph exams in cases like
[Father]'s is what information is provided as well as what
can be tested in the exam. Mr. Gillespie was provided very
little information. Based on the information provided,
Mr. Gillespie conducted a polygraph examination related to
[Father] engaging in behaviors for sexual gratification
purposes. [Father] was found to be truthful on that point.
In this situation the client controls the examination and
not the examiner and the results are a weak examination with
a lot of room for interpretation.

. . . .

143. The limited results of the polygraph examination
do not negate [Father]'s sex abuse of [T.J.] and [I.T] and
the risk of future sexual abuse of the Children.

144. The limited results of the polygraph examination
do not negate the current need for [Father] to participate
in sex abuse treatment until clinically discharged.

Father argues: the finding "the results are a [weak]
examination with a lot of room for interpretation" is contrary to
the findings that the "polygraph exam was valid in regards to
manner and method of how it was conducted and as to the results";
the "polygraph speaks for itself and clearly found no deception
when asked whether he sexually abused T.J. or I.T."; and
Dr. Francisco Najera "testified that Father cannot receive a
clinical discharge without admitting the sexual abuse."
Father's argument is not persuasive. The polygraph
examiner did not ask Father whether he sexually abused T.J. or
I.T. The questions and answers were:

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

1) Have you ever physically touched [T.J.] for a
sexual reason?
NO
2) Have you ever physically touched [I.T.] for a
sexual purpose?
NO

3) Have you ever exposed your bare genitals to any
of your children you children [sic] for sexual
purpose?
NO

Gillespie testified that "sexual abuse is actually not
rooted in . . . sexual pleasure, but in power and control."
Thus, limiting the questions to sexual reasons or purposes
weakened the examination. The family court explained in this
unchallenged finding:

141. Sexual misconduct is broader in scope than just
for sexual gratification purposes. It includes sexual
harassment, creating sexually hostile environments, and
being sexually demeaning. Its foundation is in power and
control. Touching for [Father]'s own sexual gratification
would not be in the same test as touching as a form of power
or control.

Father's argument about Dr. Najera's testimony seems to
be that because he was truthful about not touching T.J. or I.T.
for sexual reasons or purposes, he could never be clinically
discharged because he couldn't admit to something he didn't do.
But the family court explained in this unchallenged finding:

142. Polygraph examinations are used therapeutically
as part of a client's ongoing supervision and treatment. It
helps to identify and clarify behaviors which allow for
better decision making as it relates to needed services and
overall decision making.

FOF nos. 140/150, 143/153, and 144/154 were not clearly
erroneous.
Father challenges FOF no. 145 in FC-S No. 23-00105,
which is FOF no. 155 in FC-S No. 24-00081:

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

145. The Children's physical or psychological health
or welfare have been harmed and is subject to threatened
harm by the acts or omissions of the Children's family.

Father argues, "[t]his is a broad finding that covers
every possibility. There is no expert testimony by a mental
health professional that there is harm or threatened harm to the
children's psychological health or welfare." The finding was
supported by the family court's unchallenged findings and
substantial evidence in the record. The family court had to make
this finding to have jurisdiction over DHS's petitions. HRS
§ 587A-28(d)(1) (2018) (requiring a family court to determine
"[w]hether the [subject] child's physical or psychological health
or welfare has been harmed or is subject to threatened harm by
the acts or omissions of the child's family"). Father cites no
authority to support his argument that expert testimony was
required. FOF nos. 145/155 were not clearly erroneous.
Father challenges FOF no. 149 in FC-S No. 23-00105,
which is FOF no. 159 in FC-S No. 24-00081:

149. [Father] is currently not willing and able to
provide the Children with a safe family home, even with the
assistance of a service plan.

Father argues he and Mother had acquired housing by the
time of the September 9, 2024 return hearing. Living in a house
is only one of the factors the family court must consider to make
a "safe family home" determination. HRS § 587A-7 (2018). FOF
nos. 149/159 are supported by the family court's unchallenged
findings and substantial evidence in the record. They were not
clearly erroneous.
Father challenges FOF no. 152 and COL no. 20 in FC-S
No. 23-00105, which are FOF no. 162 and COL no. 20 in FC-S
No. 24-00081:

152. The Service Plan . . . , is fair, appropriate,
and comprehensive in addressing the identified safety
issues.
. . . .

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

20. The Service Plan . . . , is fair, appropriate,
and comprehensive in addressing the identified safety
issues.

Father argues the service plan requires him to take
part in sex offender treatment with Dr. Najera, who testified
that Father cannot receive a clinical discharge without admitting
to sexual abuse. The family court's mixed findings and
conclusions are supported by the family court's unchallenged
findings and substantial evidence in the record, and reflect a
correct application of the law. They were not clearly erroneous.
Father challenges FOF no. 153 in FC-S No. 23-00105,
which is FOF no. 163 in FC-S No. 24-00081, in part:

153. None of the underlying facts and data upon which
the DHS based its opinions, assessments, and recommendations
were shown to be untrustworthy.

Father argues the "record does not contain evidence of
how the DHS reconciled nondisclosure by T.J. and I.T. during
formal interviews by HPD and the CJC." Father cites no authority
requiring DHS to justify a child witness's initial reluctance to
reveal abuse. FOF nos. 153/163 are supported by the family
court's unchallenged findings and substantial evidence in the
record. They were not clearly erroneous.
Father challenges FOF no. 157 in FC-S No. 23-00105,
which is FOF no. 167 in FC-S No. 24-00081:

157. [Father] was not a credible witness, and the
Court rejects his testimony in part.

Father argues the "finding does not identify what
testimony is rejected in part to find him not credible." The
family court, as the trier of fact, is the sole evaluator of a
witness's credibility. In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i at 190, 20 P.3d at
623. The family court did not have to specify why it found
Father not credible, or which testimony it rejected. FOF
nos. 157/167 were not clearly erroneous.
Without identifying a FOF, Father argues the family
court:

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

erred in finding medical neglect by [Father] when K.T.[2]
was not taken to his follow-up doctor appointment after his
seizure. Mother and [Father] being homeless they allowed
relatives to care for K.T.[2]. K.T.[2] was in the care of
these relatives when he had his seizure. [Father] expected
these relatives to take K.T.[2] to his follow-up
appointment. They did not. There is no evidence in the
record that [Father] intentionally did not take K.T.[2] to
the follow-up appointment.

The family court addressed medical neglect in FOF
no. 73:

73. The MDT also reviewed its previous report dated
November 16, 2023, and found that it had previously assessed
that [K.T.2]'s seizure was not due to abuse. The minor had
a febrile seizure due to an ear infection, which his father
failed to bring him in for a follow-up care. Although
parents gave permission for an aunt and uncle to care for
[K.T.2], they did not allow aunt and uncle to take him for
follow-up care; this is consistent with medical neglect.

The issue was also discussed in this unchallenged FOF:

25. [Aunty] reported that it was difficult for her
to access medical care for the children because [Father] and
Mother insisted that they would tell [Aunty] when the
children's doctors' appointments were scheduled. [Father]
and Mother also insisted that she transport everyone to the
children's appointments. Neither [Father] nor Mother told
[Aunty] when [K.T.2]'s follow-up appointments were after his
first visit to the ED, when his ear infection was initially
diagnosed.

The family court's finding about medical neglect was
supported by the family court's unchallenged finding and
substantial evidence in the record. It was not clearly
erroneous.
Without citing to the record, Father argues the family
court "erred by allowing Dr. Natarajan to testify as to the
credibility of T.J. and I.T. over [Father]'s objection." The
family court qualified Kayal Natarajan, M.D., FAAP, as an expert
in pediatric medicine and child abuse and neglect. During
Dr. Natarajan's direct examination this happened:

Q. Doctor, in your -- in your second assessment,
February 22nd, 2024, is it correct in stating that part of
the documents or the information you reviewed was the four
CJC interviews of the children?

14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

A. Yes, we did review those. I did.
Q. Okay. And, Doctor, in your opinion, do you find
the children credible?
A. Yes, I do.

[FATHER'S ATTORNEY]: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Basis?
[FATHER'S ATTORNEY]: That's for the Court to decide.

THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY [DHS'S ATTORNEY]) Doctor, can you please
answer that question again? Do you find the children
credible in the four CJC interviews in this case?
A. Yes, I do. As a pediatrician, I do.

The supreme court has held:

Child victims of sexual abuse have exhibited some
patterns of behavior which are seemingly inconsistent with
behavioral norms of other victims of assault. Two such
types of behavior are delayed reporting of the offenses and
recantation of allegations of abuse. Normally, such
behavior would be attributed to inaccuracy or prevarication.
In these situations it is helpful for the jury to know that
many child victims of sexual abuse behave in the same
manner. Expert testimony exposing jurors to the unique
interpersonal dynamics involved in prosecutions for
intrafamily child sexual abuse may play a particularly
useful role by disabusing the jury of some widely held
misconceptions so that it may evaluate the evidence free of
the constraints of popular myths[.]

State v. Batangan, 71 Haw. 552, 557–58, 799 P.2d 48, 51-52 (1990)
(cleaned up). But in criminal cases involving sex abuse of a
child, an expert witness's "conclusory opinions that . . . the
child victim's report of abuse is truthful and believable is of
no assistance to the jury, and therefore, should not be admitted.
Such testimony is precluded by [Hawaii Rules of Evidence] Rule
702." Id. at 558, 799 P.2d at 52. "[E]xperts may not give
opinions which in effect usurp the basic function of the jury."
Id. at 562, 799 P.2d at 54. The family court erred by overruling
Father's objection when the State asked for Dr. Natarajan's
opinion about T.J. and I.T.'s credibility.

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

In Batangan the complaining witness testified at trial.
The supreme court stated: "As in most child sexual abuse cases,
where the only evidence consists of the victim's accusation and
the defendant's denial, expert testimony on the question of who
to believe is nothing more than advice to jurors on how to decide
the case." Id. at 559, 799 P.2d at 52 (quotation mark omitted).
Here, the family court's finding that Father sexually abused T.J.
and I.T. was supported by DHS's December 5, 2023 Safe Family Home
Report, testimony from Cezar, San Nicolas, Gillespie, and
Dr. Najera, the family court's unchallenged findings of fact, and
the court's finding that Father was not a credible witness.
Under these circumstances, the court's evidentiary ruling about
Dr. Natarajan was harmless error. See State v. McDonnell, 141
Hawai#i 280, 297-98, 409 P.3d 684, 701-02 (2017) (stating that
error in admitting expert's testimony on statistics was harmless
because "[e]rror should not be viewed in isolation and considered
purely in the abstract, but must be examined in light of the
entire proceedings and given the effect to which the whole record
shows it is entitled" (quotation marks omitted)).
The September 9, 2024 Orders Concerning Child
Protective Act entered in FC-S No. 23-00105 and FC-S No. 24-00081
are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 28, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Herbert Y. Hamada, Presiding Judge
for Father-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Eric J. Alabanza, Associate Judge
Julio C. Herrera,
Deputy Attorneys General, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Department of the Attorney Associate Judge
General, State of Hawai#i,
for Petitioner-Appellee
The Department of Human
Services.

Makia Minerbi,
Legal Aid Society of Hawai#i,
Guardian Ad Litem.

16