In re: B.Z., L.Z., E.Z., A.Z., R.Z.1, and R.Z.2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
23-OCT-2025
08:01 AM
Dkt. 53 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

IN THE INTEREST OF B.Z., L.Z., E.Z., A.Z., R.Z.1, and R.Z.2

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. FC-S 21-0044)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and Guidry, JJ.)

Mother-Appellant (Mother) appeals from the

November 22, 2024 "Order Terminating Parental Rights"

(Termination Order), entered by the Family Court of the Third

Circuit (family court). 1 The Termination Order terminated

Mother's and Father's 2 respective parental rights to their minor

children B.Z., L.Z., E.Z., A.Z., R.Z.1, and R.Z.2 (collectively,

the Children).

Mother appears to raise two points of error on appeal,

contending that: (1) Petitioner-Appellee Department of Human

1 The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided.
2 Father is a nominal appellee to this appeal.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Services (DHS) "failed to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that Mother is not willing and able to provide a safe

family home for her children even with the assistance of a

service plan or in the foreseeable future"; and (2) DHS'

"Permanent Plan with the goal of adoption to current resource

caregiver is not in the Children[']s best interest."

(Capitalization altered.) In conjunction with these

contentions, Mother challenges Findings of Fact (FOFs) 17, 28,

29, 30, 48, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, and 71, and

Conclusions of Law (COLs) 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we resolve Mother's points of error as follows:

(1) Mother contends that the family court erred by

finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother was not

presently, nor in the reasonably foreseeable future, willing and

able to provide the Children with a safe family home, even with

the assistance of a service plan.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 587A-33(a) (2018)

governs the termination of parental rights, and provides, in

relevant part:

(a) At a termination of parental rights hearing, the
court shall determine whether there exists clear and convincing
evidence that:

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

(1) A child's parent whose rights are subject to
termination is not presently willing and able
to provide the parent's child with a safe
family home, even with the assistance of a
service plan;

(2) It is not reasonably foreseeable that the
child's parent whose rights are subject to
termination will become willing and able to
provide the child with a safe family home, even
with the assistance of a service plan, within a
reasonable period of time, which shall not
exceed two years from the child's date of entry
into foster care[.]

"DHS is under an obligation to provide a reasonable

opportunity to parents through a service plan to reunify the

family." In re Doe, 100 Hawaiʻi 335, 343, 60 P.3d 285, 293

(2002) (citations omitted). However, "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." In re R Children, 145 Hawaiʻi 477, 482,

454 P.3d 418, 423 (2019) (cleaned up).

At the time the family court terminated Mother's

parental rights, the Children had been in foster custody for 39

months from their date of entry into foster care. See In re

J.H., 152 Hawaiʻi 373, 379, 526 P.3d 350, 356 (2023) ("Parents

have two years from a child's entry into foster custody to

become willing and able to provide a safe family home.") The

family court's unchallenged FOFs 3 show that Mother did not fully

3 "Unchallenged [FOFs] are binding on appeal." In re J.M., 150
Hawaiʻi 125, 137, 497 P.3d 140, 152 (2021) (citation omitted).

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

participate in and comply with her court-ordered service plan

during this time. Specifically, Mother did not start

Comprehensive Counseling Support Services (CCSS) through

P.A.R.E.N.T.S., Inc., and she "failed to start any kind of

individual therapy." The family court found that "[i]ndividual

therapy and CCSS would have helped [M]other gain some insight

into her parenting issues, help her build and, eventually,

demonstrate parenting skills." The family court further found

that, "Mother was not willing to learn and grow in her group

therapy sessions with her Children and, as a result, has little

to no insight of her recurring parenting issues."

The family court made additional unchallenged FOFs

that "Mother was inconsistent with visits and therapy" with the

Children. Mother failed to appear and/or cancelled nine of the

scheduled weekly visits with the Children, held via Zoom, 4

between March 2024 and November 2024. Of the monthly in-person

visits that were scheduled between April 2024 and October 2024,

Mother missed her May and October visits, and arrived late to

her June and July visits. From August 21, 2024 to November 14,

2024, Mother failed to appear and/or cancelled three of her

weekly group therapy sessions with the Children. The family

court found that "[t]he Children described their therapy

4 The record reflects that Mother moved to California while the
Children were in foster custody, and that Mother's visitation with the
Children consisted of weekly Zoom sessions and monthly in-person visits.

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

sessions with Mother as a waste of time because Mother was not

willing to listen to them." When Mother attended visits and

therapy sessions with the Children, she "was often angry and

preoccupied with blaming [DHS] and/or the Children for the

reasons why this case was not progressing to family

supervision." As a result, "the Children started to resent and

dread Mother's visits and therapy sessions," and "[t]he Children

supported [DHS'] decision to terminate parental rights."

The above unchallenged FOFs are supported by

substantial record evidence. At the September 20, 2024

termination of parental rights hearing, the DHS social worker

assigned to the Children's case 5 testified that Mother was non-

clinically discharged from CCSS counseling due to "[n]on-

engagement," and that Mother had not complied with her

individual therapy requirement. The DHS social worker explained

that "CCSS is meant to be a tool for [Mother]" and a service

that "goes hand in hand with skill building visits" in which

Mother "would have been able to demonstrate that she is able to

provide a safe family home for her children." Individual

therapy was important to help Mother "work through [her] anger"

as Mother "gets frustrated with the kids quickly" and "has

expressed a lot of anger."

5 The family court's finding that the DHS social worker was a
credible witness is unchallenged on appeal.

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

With regard to visitation, the DHS social worker

testified that during a February 2024 Zoom call, Mother "was

seen . . . hiding from her friend's boyfriend," and therefore

"not engaging with her children." Mother's subsequent Zoom

visits with the Children were "inconsistent," and Mother also

missed several in-person visits with the Children. 6 The DHS

social worker observed that, during the supervised in-person

visits between Mother and the Children, "[t]he [C]hildren [were]

very disconnected with [Mother]," that "[Mother had] a hard time

keeping [the Children] engaged," and "[t]he [C]hildren would

rather play with each other than with [Mother]."

The DHS social worker testified that she felt it was

not reasonably foreseeable that Mother would become willing and

able to provide a safe family home within a reasonable period of

time, even with the assistance of a service plan. The DHS

social worker explained that this was: "Because the [C]hildren

have been in out-of-home placement for over three years. Mom

has had three years to complete the service plan. But she

continues to be inconsistent with her visits and with CCSS

counseling." The DHS social worker further explained that,

"[t]hese [C]hildren, they deserve permanency and stability.

They deserve to have long term placement. And that with them

6 The DHS social worker further testified, at the November 22, 2024
continued hearing on termination of parental rights, that Mother also missed
her scheduled October 2024 in-person visit.

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

not having this placement . . . it can affect them and their

well-being, and their lifestyle and their want to have

permanency."

On this record, we conclude that the family court did

not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence that

Mother was not presently, nor in the reasonably foreseeable

future, willing and able to provide the Children with a safe

family home. We conclude that the FOFs challenged by Mother are

not clearly erroneous, and that the COLs challenged by Mother

are not wrong. 7

(2) Mother contends that the family court erred in

concluding that DHS' permanent plan, which set forth the goal of

adoption to the current resource caregivers, was not in the

Children's best interest. HRS § 587A-33 states, in pertinent

part,

(a) At a termination of parental rights hearing, the court
shall determine whether there exists clear and convincing
evidence that:

. . . .

(3) The proposed permanent plan is in the best
interests of the child. In reaching this
determination, the court shall:

(A) Presume that it is in the best interests
of the child to be promptly and
permanently placed with responsible and
competent substitute parents and family
in a safe and secure home; and

7 FOFs 59, 60, 61, 65, 70, and 71, and COLS 9 and 10, relate
specifically to Mother's present and future willingness and ability to
provide the children with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a
service plan.

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

(B) Give greater weight to the presumption
that the permanent plan is in the child's
best interest, the younger the child is
upon the child's date of entry into
foster care[.]

Mother makes no argument on this point other than to

contend that it would be "in the [C]hildren['s] best interests

to be reunified with [Mother]." On this record, 8 and in light of

our discussion in section (1), supra, Mother's contention lacks

merit. We conclude that the challenged FOFs are not clearly

erroneous, and the challenged COLs are not wrong. 9

We therefore affirm.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 23, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Martin H. Bento,
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
for Mother-Appellant.
Associate Judge
Julio C. Herrera,
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Kimberly Angay,
Associate Judge
Deputy Attorneys General,
for Petitioner-Appellee.

8 The DHS social worker testified that adoption was in the best
interest of the Children because "[a]doption will give the [C]hildren
stability, permanency and long term placement." The family court made
unchallenged FOFs that the Children's respective resource caregivers "are
willing and able to adopt them and be their forever home[s]," the resource
caregivers are "safe and appropriate," that "[t]he Children are doing well in
their current placements and all of the Children's physical, medical,
emotional, and psychological needs have been met in their respective
placements," and "[t]he Children are bonded with their current caregivers and
their respective placements are in their best interests."
9 FOFs 66, 67, and 68, and COLs 11 and 12, relate specifically to
the permanent plan.

8