In re: J.H.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
27-JUN-2025
08:02 AM
Dkt. 74 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN THE INTEREST OF J.H.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. 21-00135)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, and Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.)

Father-Appellant J.C. (Father) appeals from the Order
Terminating Parental Rights (TPR Order), entered on September 10,
2024, in the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court).1/
The TPR Order, among other things, terminated Father's parental
rights to his minor child, J.H. Father also challenges various
aspects of the Family Court's November 4, 2024 Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law (FOFs/COLs).
More specifically, Father challenges FOFs 114, 218,
219, 220, 225, and 226 and COLs 265 and 266. He argues that the
Family Court erred in: (1) finding that Petitioner-Appellee
Hawai#i Department of Human Services (DHS) made reasonable
efforts to aid him in reunifying with J.H.; (2) concluding that
Father was not able to provide J.H. with a safe family home at
the date of the hearing on DHS's motion to terminate parental
rights, and would not be able to do so within a reasonable period
of time; and (3) accepting an offer of proof in lieu of testimony
by one of Father's witnesses at the hearing on DHS's motion to

1/
The Honorable Lesley N. Maloian presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

terminate parental rights.2/
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Father's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Father contends that the Family Court clearly erred
in finding that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify him with
J.H. He appears to challenge FOFs 218, 225, and 226 on this
basis.
"DHS is under an obligation to provide a reasonable
opportunity to parents through a service plan to reunify the
family." In re Doe, 100 Hawai#i 335, 343, 60 P.3d 285, 293
(2002). Here, the following uncontested FOFs describe or discuss
DHS's reasonable efforts to reunify Father with J.H.: FOFs 39,
44-45, 48, 53, 57, 62-64, 67-68, 71-72, 74-76, 81, 86-87, 93-94,
100-01, 110-11, 202-214. See Balogh v. Balogh, 134 Hawai#i 29,
33 n.3, 332 P.3d 631, 635 n.3 (2014) (the family court's
uncontested findings of fact are binding on appeal (citing Bremer
v. Weeks, 104 Hawai#i 43, 63, 85 P.3d 150, 170 (2004))).
Father argues that DHS did not make reasonable efforts
because it did not update the service plan created for him on
June 29, 2022, and did not visit him at Habilitat during his six
months of residency there prior to trial. However, Father was
incarcerated for much of the period from June 29, 2022, to the
September 10, 2024 TPR trial, and did not complete the services
prescribed in the service plan.3/ There was therefore no reason
to update the plan. From the record, it appears that Father's
failure to complete services was due at least in part to his
repeated periods of incarceration, not DHS's lack of reasonable
efforts. See In re Doe, 100 Hawai#i at 343, 60 P.3d at 293.
The record further reflects that DHS made reasonable
efforts to communicate with Father during the six-month period

2/
Father's points of error have been restated and reordered for
clarity.
3/
Father does not challenge FOF 203, which found that he was
incarcerated from August 2021 to April 4, 2023 for three felony criminal
cases. He does not challenge FOF 209, which found that he did "not
participate in or complete any services offered by DHS."

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

between his release from Oahu Community Correctional Center in
March 2024 and the September 10, 2024 TPR trial. At a July 31,
2024 pretrial hearing, counsel for DHS represented that Father's
case worker, Melissa Lubick (Lubick), made a number of attempts
to contact Father at Habilitat, but could not speak with him
because he did not put her on his contact list. The Family Court
therefore instructed Father to sign a consent to enable Lubick to
contact him. Later, at the TPR trial, Father admitted that he
had only signed the consent about two or three weeks prior to
trial.4/
On this record, we conclude that substantial evidence
supported the challenged FOFs. They are not clearly erroneous.
(2) Father challenges FOFs 219 and 220, and COLs 265
and 266, which determined that "Father is not presently willing
and able to provide [J.H.] with a safe family home, even with the
assistance of a service plan[,]" and that "[i]t is not reasonably
foreseeable that Father will become willing and able to provide
[J.H.] with a safe family home, . . . within a reasonable period
of time."
HRS § 587A-33(a) (2018), part of the Child Protective
Act, governs the termination of parental rights. It provides, in
pertinent part:

§ 587A-33 Termination of parental rights hearing.
(a) At a termination of parental rights hearing, the court
shall determine whether there exists clear and convincing
evidence that:
(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

4/
We further note that because J.H. entered into foster care on
September 1, 2021, by the time Father entered Habilitat in March 2024, the
two-year time frame to achieve reunification under Hawaii Revised Statutes
(HRS) § 587A-33(a)(2) had already been exceeded. See In re Interest of KJ-I,
No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2021 WL 3855772, at *8 (Haw. App. Aug. 30, 2021) (holding
father's contention that DHS failed to provide him with services for a six-
month period lacked merit, when the two-year time frame to provide a safe
family home had already run before the six-month period).

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

reasonable period of time, which shall not
exceed two years from the child's date of entry
into foster care[.]

The record in this case, including multiple uncontested
FOFs, supports FOFs 219 and 220 and COLs 265 and 266. Father
admitted that J.H. could not reside with him at Habilitat. The
Family Court found at FOF 204 that Father would not earn a
clinical discharge from Habilitat until 2.5 years after his
admittance in March 2024. The court determined at FOF 212 that
"Father has no insight into his recurring problems with substance
abuse and domestic violence with Mother, and his inability to
safely care for [J.H.]" FOF 214 stated that based on the expert
testimony of DHS social workers and the other credible evidence,
Father "has not demonstrated his ability to provide a safe family
home with the assistance of a service plan within a reasonable
time period." FOF 229 stated that "[n]one of the underlying
facts upon which the DHS based its opinions, assessments and
recommendations were shown to be unreliable or untrustworthy."
These unchallenged FOFs show that regardless of whether Father
was "presently willing" to provide a safe family home at the time
of the TPR trial, the Family Court was correct in determining
that he was unable to do so. Additionally, at the time of the
TPR trial, Father had already significantly exceeded the two-year
time frame under HRS § 587A-33(a)(2) to provide a safe family
home. See In re J.H., 152 Hawai#i 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.").
On this record, the Family Court did not clearly err in
finding clear and convincing evidence that Father was not
presently, nor in the reasonably foreseeable future, willing and
able to provide J.H with a safe family home.
(3) Father challenges the Family Court's acceptance of
an offer of proof in lieu of live testimony by his witness, P.T.,
and relatedly, challenges FOF 114, which states that the Family
Court heard from P.T. "by offer of proof."
Father's challenge fails as an initial matter because
Father neglected to list P.T. as a trial witness in his pretrial

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

statement, as required by Hawai#i Family Court Rules (HFCR) Rule
94.3(a)(1). Although Father's counsel initially claimed P.T. was
a rebuttal witness, it is clear from the offer of proof that P.T.
was being called as part of Father's case-in-chief. In
interpreting Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai#i
Rule 18(a)(1), which is identical to HFCR Rule 94.3(a)(1), this
court has recognized that "Rule 18(a)(1) . . . must be
scrupulously followed if we are to have fair trials." Boudreau
v. General Elec. Co., 2 Haw. App. 10, 16, 625 P.2d 384, 389
(1981) (citing Cafarella v. Char, 1 Haw. App. 142, 147, 615 P..2d
763, 768 (1980)).
In addition, the trial transcript indicates that the
Family Court and all parties accepted Father's offer of proof as
to P.T.'s testimony. Father fails to demonstrate any prejudice
arising from the Family Court's acceptance of the offer of proof
rather than live testimony. Father claims "[c]ompletion of
services is a factor in a termination trial" under HRS § 587A-7.
However, at the time of trial, Father had only completed six
months of a two and one-half year substance abuse program.
P.T.'s testimony had no bearing on whether Father was presently,
or in the reasonably foreseeable future, able to provide J.H with
a safe family home.
On this record, we conclude that FOF 114 is not clearly
erroneous.
For the reasons discussed above, the Order Terminating
Parental Rights, entered on September 10, 2024, in the Family
Court of the First Circuit, is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 27, 2025.

On the briefs:

Crystal M. Asano /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Father-Appellant. Presiding Judge

Kurt J. Shimamoto, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Julio C. Herrera, Associate Judge
Regina Anne M. Shimada, and
Abigail D. Apana, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Deputy Attorneys General, Associate Judge
for Petitioner-Appellee.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Jamie L. DeMello
(Legal Aid Society of Hawai#i),
Guardian Ad Litem

6