In re: B.P.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
13-APR-2026
09:07 AM
Dkt. 64 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

IN THE INTEREST OF B.P.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Mother-Appellant D.P. (Mother) appeals from the Family

Court of the First Circuit's October 9, 2024 order granting

Petitioner-Appellee the Department of Human Services' (DHS)

request to withdraw its August 28, 2024 Petition for Temporary

Foster Custody (Order Withdrawing Petition). 1

On appeal, Mother challenges the family court's

admission of exhibits that DHS and the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL)

offered and that the family court relied on in concluding that

Father-Appellee T.P. (Father) could provide a safe family home

1 The Honorable Lesley N. Maloian presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

for B.P. (Child) and closing the underlying Child Protective Act

Case. Mother also challenges the family court's authority to

enter its findings and conclusions after she filed her notice of

appeal. 2

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below and vacate and remand.

Child was born to Mother and Father in 2019. Since

March 2024, DHS has received and investigated multiple reports

of abuse or neglect to Child by Mother, Father, and K.P.

(Maternal Grandmother). Without physical evidence, allegations

of sexual abuse and threats of abuse by Father went unconfirmed,

"but there was a concern of coaching by Maternal Grandmother."

In April 2024, Father filed for divorce from Mother in

1FDV-XX-XXXXXXX (Divorce Case). 3 A visitation order in the

Divorce Case limited Father's contact with Child to three times

a week, for approximately four hours at a time.

2 Although Mother's notice of appeal identifies and appends only the
October 9, 2024 Order Withdrawing Petition, Mother's abbreviated opening
brief indicates she also appeals from the family court's September 9, 2024
order granting DHS's Petition and awarding temporary family supervision with
placement to Father (Temporary Family Supervision Order). Given our
decision, we need not address Mother's arguments as to the September 9, 2024
Temporary Family Supervision Order, including alleged insufficiency of
service of process and the protective order.

3 The Honorable Robert J. Brown presided in the Divorce Case.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On August 24, 2024, DHS received and confirmed "a

report of threat of abuse and threatened neglect to" Child by

Mother and Maternal Grandmother. DHS assumed temporary foster

custody of Child on August 25.

On August 28, DHS filed its Petition and requested an

inquiry into the abuse allegations.

On August 30, the family court conducted a temporary

foster custody hearing. The family court judicially noticed the

"related records and files" in the Divorce Case and accepted

into evidence, over Mother's objection, twenty exhibits offered

by DHS, including: (1) the August 28, 2024 Safe Family Home

Report; (2) the August 28, 2024 Family Service Plan; (3) Child's

medical and dental records; and (4) the August 24, 2024 Hawaiʻi

State Medical-Legal Record and Sexual Assault Information Form.

Also over Mother's objection, the family court ordered

"temporary family supervision to [DHS] as that is [its]

recommendation and findings at this time based on [its]

investigation with placement to Father." The family court

entered its order to that effect on September 9, and stated

Mother had "thirty (30) days to submit written objections." The

family court scheduled a contested return hearing for October 8. 4

4 Mother waived the requirement under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 587A-12(c)(2) (2018) that the return hearing be conducted within fifteen
days of the date of the Petition's filing or the August 30 hearing. Mother
explained she wanted "more time than 15 days to prepare her case."

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

In the meantime, on September 18, the family court in

the Divorce Case "took judicial notice of the records and files

in [the Divorce Case], including the related [Child Protective

Act] Case." (Formatting altered.) Father offered, and the

family court received, into evidence DHS's Petition — which

asserted that Father was "willing and able to provide Child with

a safe family home with the assistance of a service plan" and

Mother was not — and the September 9, 2024 Temporary Family

Supervision Order.

Mother's counsel objected, given the outstanding Child

Protective Act Case, and requested that the "matter be taken

under advisement and appropriate orders be issued at a later

time." (Formatting altered.) Nonetheless, arguments were had.

The family court orally awarded Father "temporary sole

legal/physical custody of the Child." (Formatting altered.)

The family court entered a written order on September 25 to that

effect (Custody Order), "award[ing] temporary sole legal and

sole physical custody of [Child]" to Father and authorized

Mother to "have supervised visitation with [Child] at the

discretion of DHS or the GAL."

On September 30, in the Child Protective Act Case, DHS

filed a "Motion for Immediate Review," pursuant to Hawaiʻi

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Revised Statutes (HRS) § 587A-30(a) (2018) 5 and in light of the

Custody Order entered in the Divorce Case, to address DHS's

request to withdraw its Petition. DHS explained that "the only

reason DHS had not placed the Child with Father was due to a

visitation order" in the Divorce Case; the family court

subsequently awarded Father sole legal custody of Child in the

Divorce Case; and DHS "assessed Father to be a safe and

protective parent" and believed "all remaining issues" should be

litigated in the Divorce Case without DHS's involvement.

On October 1, Mother filed (self-represented) her

objections in the Child Protective Act Case, including (1) three

letters, (2) an exhibit list referencing and appending (a) a

scan of an unidentified document with handwritten notes

disputing various statements, (b) provider notes taken during an

unscheduled visit to Child's primary care physician in which

Mother, Maternal Grandmother, and Child made allegations of

abuse by Father, and (c) a scan of the July 15, 2024 DHS update

to the family court containing more handwritten notes.

On October 8, the family court conducted its contested

return hearing. Over Mother's objection, the family court

5 Under HRS § 587A-30, a party may move to set a case for a periodic
review hearing during which the court must determine, inter alia, whether the
child is safe and enter orders "[t]o terminate jurisdiction if the court
finds that the child's parents are willing and able to provide the child with
a safe family home without the assistance of a service plan." HRS § 587A-
30(b)(1).
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

received into evidence four exhibits offered by DHS and one by

the GAL:

• DHS Exhibit 21: Résumé of Jessica Wong-Sumida, M.A.,

J.D.;

• DHS Exhibit 22: Résumé of Winnie Ann Q. Nishimiya;

• DHS Exhibit 23: DHS Supplemental Safe Family Home

Report to Court dated October 2, 2024;

• DHS Exhibit 24: September 25, 2024 Custody Order in

Divorce Case; and

• GAL Exhibit 1: Guardian Ad Litem's First Short Report

to the Court.

In particular, DHS Exhibit 23 opined that "Father is able to

provide a safe family home without the assistance of a service

plan" and recommended "Temporary Family Supervision be revoked

and [the] case closed." With no witness testimony, the family

court orally granted DHS's motion, allowing DHS to withdraw its

Petition, and closed the case, stating Mother had thirty days to

appeal.

On October 9, the family court entered its written

Order Withdrawing Petition, granting DHS's Motion for Immediate

Review, withdrawing the Petition, and terminating jurisdiction.

As relevant to Mother's appeal, the family court made the

following two findings:

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

A. [Father] can provide a safe family home without the
assistance of a service plan at this time;

B. [DHS] exhibit nos. 21 through 24 and GAL's exhibit
no. 1 were received into evidence by the Court
subject to cross-examination; [Mother] and [Father]
shall have thirty (30) days to submit any objections
and/or clarifications[.]

(Formatting altered.) Despite closing the case and terminating

jurisdiction, the Order Withdrawing Petition stated Mother had

"thirty (30) days to submit any objections and/or

clarifications."

Mother appealed on November 8. Also on November 8,

Mother filed her objections.

On December 20, the family court entered its findings

of fact (FOF) and conclusions of law (COL). FOF 79 and COL 16

both stated, "Mother is not currently willing and able to

provide the Child with a safe family home, even with the

assistance of a service plan."

(1) As a threshold matter, DHS challenges Mother's

standing to appeal because Mother "was neither affected nor

prejudiced" by the Order Withdrawing Petition and, thus, not

aggrieved.

"An interested party aggrieved by any order or decree

of the court under this chapter may appeal as provided in

section 571-54." HRS § 587A-36 (2018). HRS § 571-54 (2018)

provides, in relevant part, "An interested party, aggrieved by

any order or decree of the court, may appeal to the intermediate

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

appellate court for review of questions of law and fact upon the

same terms and conditions as in other cases in the circuit

court." An aggrieved party is "one who is affected or

prejudiced by the appealable order." Leone v. Cnty. of Maui,

141 Hawaiʻi 68, 89, 404 P.3d 1257, 1278 (2017) (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, FOF 79 and COL 16 in support of the family

court's Order Withdrawing Petition stated, "Mother is not

currently willing and able to provide the Child with a safe

family home, even with the assistance of a service plan."

FOF 79 and COL 16 track the statutory language authorizing

termination of parental rights under HRS § 587A-33(a)(1) (2018),

which provides, "At a termination of parental rights hearing,

the court shall determine whether . . . [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[.]"

In addition, the family court in the Divorce Case

appears to have considered DHS's Petition, which contained

similar language, when awarding custody to Father. In turn, the

family court in this Child Protective Act Case relied on the

Custody Order in the Divorce Case and DHS Exhibit 23 in

determining Mother was "not currently willing and able to

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

provide the Child with a safe family home, even with the

assistance of a service plan."

In other words, the family court's findings and

conclusions (as well as DHS's Petition) affect whether Mother

has custody of and access to Child. See Leone, 141 Hawaiʻi at

89, 404 P.3d at 1278. Thus, Mother has standing to appeal the

October 9, 2024 Order Withdrawing Petition and the December 20,

2024 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

(2) Next, Mother contends she did not have a

meaningful opportunity to object to or cross-examine the

exhibits the family court accepted into evidence at the

October 8 hearing. Mother relies on In re JH, 152 Hawaiʻi 373,

526 P.3d 350 (2023).

In In re JH, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court explained that

the "due process floor entails notice and an opportunity to be

heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner," and that

"[c]ontext shapes the process that is due." Id. at 380-81, 526

P.3d at 357-58 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Mother did not have a meaningful opportunity to

be heard with regards to the Petition withdrawal. See id. The

family court granted DHS's motion, allowing it to withdraw its

Petition, closed the case, and terminated jurisdiction, all

before allowing Mother an opportunity to submit objections to

DHS Exhibit 23 and the other exhibits entered into evidence.
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

And context is important. See id. at 381, 526 P.3d at

358. As mentioned above, the family court in the Divorce Case

considered DHS's Petition in awarding custody to Father, and the

family court in this Child Protective Act Case relied on the

Custody Order in the Divorce Case and DHS Exhibit 23 in allowing

DHS to withdraw its Petition. Upon entering its findings and

conclusions, Mother was left with a finding that she was "not

currently willing and able to provide the Child with a safe

family home, even with the assistance of a service plan" and no

custody of Child.

Allowing Mother to submit objections after withdrawing

the Petition and closing the case did not afford Mother "an

opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful

manner." See id. at 380-81, 526 P.3d at 357-58.

(3) Finally, Mother challenges the family court's

authority to enter its December 20, 2024 Findings of Facts and

Conclusions of Law. Mother argues the family court was divested

of jurisdiction.

Hawaiʻi Family Court Rules Rule 52(a) instructs the

family court to "enter its findings of fact and conclusions of

law where none have been entered" upon the filing of the notice

of appeal. Mother filed her notice of appeal with the family

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

court on November 20, and the family court entered its findings

and conclusions on December 20. There was no error.

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the family court's

October 9, 2024 Order Withdrawing Petition and remand the case

for proceedings consistent with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 13, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Branden T. Nakahara,
for Mother-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Joy S. Wills,
Julio C. Herrera, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Erin K.S. Torres, Associate Judge
Kellie M. Kersten,
Derek D. Peterson,
Deputy Attorneys General
Attorneys for Petitioner-
Appellee
The Department of Human
Services.

Jamie L. Demello,
Guardian Ad Litem

11

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
13-APR-2026
09:07 AM
Dkt. 64 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

IN THE INTEREST OF B.P.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Mother-Appellant D.P. (Mother) appeals from the Family

Court of the First Circuit's October 9, 2024 order granting

Petitioner-Appellee the Department of Human Services' (DHS)

request to withdraw its August 28, 2024 Petition for Temporary

Foster Custody (Order Withdrawing Petition). 1

On appeal, Mother challenges the family court's

admission of exhibits that DHS and the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL)

offered and that the family court relied on in concluding that

Father-Appellee T.P. (Father) could provide a safe family home

1 The Honorable Lesley N. Maloian presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

for B.P. (Child) and closing the underlying Child Protective Act

Case. Mother also challenges the family court's authority to

enter its findings and conclusions after she filed her notice of

appeal. 2

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below and vacate and remand.

Child was born to Mother and Father in 2019. Since

March 2024, DHS has received and investigated multiple reports

of abuse or neglect to Child by Mother, Father, and K.P.

(Maternal Grandmother). Without physical evidence, allegations

of sexual abuse and threats of abuse by Father went unconfirmed,

"but there was a concern of coaching by Maternal Grandmother."

In April 2024, Father filed for divorce from Mother in

1FDV-XX-XXXXXXX (Divorce Case). 3 A visitation order in the

Divorce Case limited Father's contact with Child to three times

a week, for approximately four hours at a time.

2 Although Mother's notice of appeal identifies and appends only the
October 9, 2024 Order Withdrawing Petition, Mother's abbreviated opening
brief indicates she also appeals from the family court's September 9, 2024
order granting DHS's Petition and awarding temporary family supervision with
placement to Father (Temporary Family Supervision Order). Given our
decision, we need not address Mother's arguments as to the September 9, 2024
Temporary Family Supervision Order, including alleged insufficiency of
service of process and the protective order.

3 The Honorable Robert J. Brown presided in the Divorce Case.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On August 24, 2024, DHS received and confirmed "a

report of threat of abuse and threatened neglect to" Child by

Mother and Maternal Grandmother. DHS assumed temporary foster

custody of Child on August 25.

On August 28, DHS filed its Petition and requested an

inquiry into the abuse allegations.

On August 30, the family court conducted a temporary

foster custody hearing. The family court judicially noticed the

"related records and files" in the Divorce Case and accepted

into evidence, over Mother's objection, twenty exhibits offered

by DHS, including: (1) the August 28, 2024 Safe Family Home

Report; (2) the August 28, 2024 Family Service Plan; (3) Child's

medical and dental records; and (4) the August 24, 2024 Hawaiʻi

State Medical-Legal Record and Sexual Assault Information Form.

Also over Mother's objection, the family court ordered

"temporary family supervision to [DHS] as that is [its]

recommendation and findings at this time based on [its]

investigation with placement to Father." The family court

entered its order to that effect on September 9, and stated

Mother had "thirty (30) days to submit written objections." The

family court scheduled a contested return hearing for October 8. 4

4 Mother waived the requirement under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 587A-12(c)(2) (2018) that the return hearing be conducted within fifteen
days of the date of the Petition's filing or the August 30 hearing. Mother
explained she wanted "more time than 15 days to prepare her case."

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

In the meantime, on September 18, the family court in

the Divorce Case "took judicial notice of the records and files

in [the Divorce Case], including the related [Child Protective

Act] Case." (Formatting altered.) Father offered, and the

family court received, into evidence DHS's Petition — which

asserted that Father was "willing and able to provide Child with

a safe family home with the assistance of a service plan" and

Mother was not — and the September 9, 2024 Temporary Family

Supervision Order.

Mother's counsel objected, given the outstanding Child

Protective Act Case, and requested that the "matter be taken

under advisement and appropriate orders be issued at a later

time." (Formatting altered.) Nonetheless, arguments were had.

The family court orally awarded Father "temporary sole

legal/physical custody of the Child." (Formatting altered.)

The family court entered a written order on September 25 to that

effect (Custody Order), "award[ing] temporary sole legal and

sole physical custody of [Child]" to Father and authorized

Mother to "have supervised visitation with [Child] at the

discretion of DHS or the GAL."

On September 30, in the Child Protective Act Case, DHS

filed a "Motion for Immediate Review," pursuant to Hawaiʻi

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Revised Statutes (HRS) § 587A-30(a) (2018) 5 and in light of the

Custody Order entered in the Divorce Case, to address DHS's

request to withdraw its Petition. DHS explained that "the only

reason DHS had not placed the Child with Father was due to a

visitation order" in the Divorce Case; the family court

subsequently awarded Father sole legal custody of Child in the

Divorce Case; and DHS "assessed Father to be a safe and

protective parent" and believed "all remaining issues" should be

litigated in the Divorce Case without DHS's involvement.

On October 1, Mother filed (self-represented) her

objections in the Child Protective Act Case, including (1) three

letters, (2) an exhibit list referencing and appending (a) a

scan of an unidentified document with handwritten notes

disputing various statements, (b) provider notes taken during an

unscheduled visit to Child's primary care physician in which

Mother, Maternal Grandmother, and Child made allegations of

abuse by Father, and (c) a scan of the July 15, 2024 DHS update

to the family court containing more handwritten notes.

On October 8, the family court conducted its contested

return hearing. Over Mother's objection, the family court

5 Under HRS § 587A-30, a party may move to set a case for a periodic
review hearing during which the court must determine, inter alia, whether the
child is safe and enter orders "[t]o terminate jurisdiction if the court
finds that the child's parents are willing and able to provide the child with
a safe family home without the assistance of a service plan." HRS § 587A-
30(b)(1).
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

received into evidence four exhibits offered by DHS and one by

the GAL:

• DHS Exhibit 21: Résumé of Jessica Wong-Sumida, M.A.,

J.D.;

• DHS Exhibit 22: Résumé of Winnie Ann Q. Nishimiya;

• DHS Exhibit 23: DHS Supplemental Safe Family Home

Report to Court dated October 2, 2024;

• DHS Exhibit 24: September 25, 2024 Custody Order in

Divorce Case; and

• GAL Exhibit 1: Guardian Ad Litem's First Short Report

to the Court.

In particular, DHS Exhibit 23 opined that "Father is able to

provide a safe family home without the assistance of a service

plan" and recommended "Temporary Family Supervision be revoked

and [the] case closed." With no witness testimony, the family

court orally granted DHS's motion, allowing DHS to withdraw its

Petition, and closed the case, stating Mother had thirty days to

appeal.

On October 9, the family court entered its written

Order Withdrawing Petition, granting DHS's Motion for Immediate

Review, withdrawing the Petition, and terminating jurisdiction.

As relevant to Mother's appeal, the family court made the

following two findings:

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

A. [Father] can provide a safe family home without the
assistance of a service plan at this time;

B. [DHS] exhibit nos. 21 through 24 and GAL's exhibit
no. 1 were received into evidence by the Court
subject to cross-examination; [Mother] and [Father]
shall have thirty (30) days to submit any objections
and/or clarifications[.]

(Formatting altered.) Despite closing the case and terminating

jurisdiction, the Order Withdrawing Petition stated Mother had

"thirty (30) days to submit any objections and/or

clarifications."

Mother appealed on November 8. Also on November 8,

Mother filed her objections.

On December 20, the family court entered its findings

of fact (FOF) and conclusions of law (COL). FOF 79 and COL 16

both stated, "Mother is not currently willing and able to

provide the Child with a safe family home, even with the

assistance of a service plan."

(1) As a threshold matter, DHS challenges Mother's

standing to appeal because Mother "was neither affected nor

prejudiced" by the Order Withdrawing Petition and, thus, not

aggrieved.

"An interested party aggrieved by any order or decree

of the court under this chapter may appeal as provided in

section 571-54." HRS § 587A-36 (2018). HRS § 571-54 (2018)

provides, in relevant part, "An interested party, aggrieved by

any order or decree of the court, may appeal to the intermediate

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

appellate court for review of questions of law and fact upon the

same terms and conditions as in other cases in the circuit

court." An aggrieved party is "one who is affected or

prejudiced by the appealable order." Leone v. Cnty. of Maui,

141 Hawaiʻi 68, 89, 404 P.3d 1257, 1278 (2017) (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, FOF 79 and COL 16 in support of the family

court's Order Withdrawing Petition stated, "Mother is not

currently willing and able to provide the Child with a safe

family home, even with the assistance of a service plan."

FOF 79 and COL 16 track the statutory language authorizing

termination of parental rights under HRS § 587A-33(a)(1) (2018),

which provides, "At a termination of parental rights hearing,

the court shall determine whether . . . [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[.]"

In addition, the family court in the Divorce Case

appears to have considered DHS's Petition, which contained

similar language, when awarding custody to Father. In turn, the

family court in this Child Protective Act Case relied on the

Custody Order in the Divorce Case and DHS Exhibit 23 in

determining Mother was "not currently willing and able to

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

provide the Child with a safe family home, even with the

assistance of a service plan."

In other words, the family court's findings and

conclusions (as well as DHS's Petition) affect whether Mother

has custody of and access to Child. See Leone, 141 Hawaiʻi at

89, 404 P.3d at 1278. Thus, Mother has standing to appeal the

October 9, 2024 Order Withdrawing Petition and the December 20,

2024 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

(2) Next, Mother contends she did not have a

meaningful opportunity to object to or cross-examine the

exhibits the family court accepted into evidence at the

October 8 hearing. Mother relies on In re JH, 152 Hawaiʻi 373,

526 P.3d 350 (2023).

In In re JH, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court explained that

the "due process floor entails notice and an opportunity to be

heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner," and that

"[c]ontext shapes the process that is due." Id. at 380-81, 526

P.3d at 357-58 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Mother did not have a meaningful opportunity to

be heard with regards to the Petition withdrawal. See id. The

family court granted DHS's motion, allowing it to withdraw its

Petition, closed the case, and terminated jurisdiction, all

before allowing Mother an opportunity to submit objections to

DHS Exhibit 23 and the other exhibits entered into evidence.
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

And context is important. See id. at 381, 526 P.3d at

358. As mentioned above, the family court in the Divorce Case

considered DHS's Petition in awarding custody to Father, and the

family court in this Child Protective Act Case relied on the

Custody Order in the Divorce Case and DHS Exhibit 23 in allowing

DHS to withdraw its Petition. Upon entering its findings and

conclusions, Mother was left with a finding that she was "not

currently willing and able to provide the Child with a safe

family home, even with the assistance of a service plan" and no

custody of Child.

Allowing Mother to submit objections after withdrawing

the Petition and closing the case did not afford Mother "an

opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful

manner." See id. at 380-81, 526 P.3d at 357-58.

(3) Finally, Mother challenges the family court's

authority to enter its December 20, 2024 Findings of Facts and

Conclusions of Law. Mother argues the family court was divested

of jurisdiction.

Hawaiʻi Family Court Rules Rule 52(a) instructs the

family court to "enter its findings of fact and conclusions of

law where none have been entered" upon the filing of the notice

of appeal. Mother filed her notice of appeal with the family

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

court on November 20, and the family court entered its findings

and conclusions on December 20. There was no error.

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the family court's

October 9, 2024 Order Withdrawing Petition and remand the case

for proceedings consistent with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 13, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Branden T. Nakahara,
for Mother-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Joy S. Wills,
Julio C. Herrera, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Erin K.S. Torres, Associate Judge
Kellie M. Kersten,
Derek D. Peterson,
Deputy Attorneys General
Attorneys for Petitioner-
Appellee
The Department of Human
Services.

Jamie L. Demello,
Guardian Ad Litem

11