CourtListener 10740488

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
21-NOV-2025
08:04 AM
Dkt. 61 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

G.K., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
O.K., Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2FDV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant G.K. (Husband) appeals from the

Family Court of the Second Circuit's (1) December 31, 2024 order

denying Husband's Motion to Return Child to Maui and granting

Defendant-Appellee O.K.'s (Wife) motion to dismiss (Dismissal

Order); (2) February 13, 2025 order denying Husband's motion for

relief from the Dismissal Order (Order Denying Relief); and

(3) February 27, 2025 order denying Husband's motion for
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reconsideration of the Dismissal Order and Order Denying Relief

(Order Denying Reconsideration). 1

On appeal, Husband contends the family court erred in

concluding Hawai‘i was an inconvenient forum and dismissing his

divorce complaint.

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.

Husband and Wife were married in Utah in 2014, and

G.S.K. (Child) was born in 2022. Both parties represented that

they moved to Maui on October 30, 2023.

In March 2024, Husband filed a complaint for divorce

in the family court. The court was to confer with the New

Mexico court regarding jurisdiction, but Husband withdrew his

complaint in May 2024.

On November 27, 2024, Wife filed a petition for legal

separation in New Mexico.

On December 16, Wife petitioned the New Mexico court

for dissolution of the marriage.

1 The Honorable James R. Rouse presided.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On December 18, Husband (self-represented) filed a

complaint for divorce in the family court, requesting sole

custody of Child with Wife having supervised visits.

On December 23, Husband filed the Motion to Return

Child.

On December 24, the family court set a hearing on the

Motion to Return Child for December 30, 2024 at 2:00 p.m.

Hawai‘i's Judiciary Electronic Filing System (JEFS) shows Husband

needed to be conventionally served.

On December 26, Wife requested to appear via Zoom.

Wife's request expressly stated, "The above matter is set for a

hearing on December 30, 2024 at 2:00 p.m." According to JEFS,

the notification for Wife's request was electronically mailed to

Husband at his iCloud email address.

That same day, Wife also filed a response to Husband's

Motion to Return Child and a motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction. In her filings, Mother alleged she was a victim

of domestic violence and relocated with Child to New Mexico on

November 21.

On December 30, the family court held a hearing on

Husband's Motion to Return Child. The transcripts reflect the

hearing started at 2:01 p.m., and the minutes reflect that the

hearing started at 2:07 p.m. In any event, the record reflects

Husband was not present, which Husband does not contest. The

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

family court denied Husband's Motion to Return Child and

dismissed his complaint for divorce. The family court found

that "this is an inconvenient forum. The matter was filed

initially in New Mexico. That will be the state that will hear

this case."

On December 31, the family court entered its Dismissal

Order. Although default was not mentioned during the hearing,

the Dismissal Order noted Husband "was defaulted." The family

court concluded "Hawai‘i is an inconvenient forum and the more

appropriate forum for the Complaint is in New Mexico."

On January 8, 2025, Husband (represented by counsel)

moved for relief from the Dismissal Order based on Hawai‘i Family

Court Rules Rule 60(b)(1), excusable neglect. Husband argued

Hawai‘i had jurisdiction over the divorce under the 2018 version

of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 580-1. 2 In a declaration

2 The legislature amended HRS § 580-1 in 2021 — the operative version
of the statute in this case — to remove language from subsection (a) that
Husband quoted in his motion for relief. The following bracketed and
stricken text was repealed and underscored text was added:

(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in matters of
annulment[, divorce,] and separation, subject to section
603-37 as to change of venue, and subject also to appeal
according to law, is conferred upon the family court of the
circuit in which the applicant has been domiciled or has
been physically present for a continuous period of at least
three months next preceding the application therefor,
except as provided in subsection (b). [No absolute divorce
from the bond of matrimony shall be granted for any cause
unless either party to the marriage has been domiciled or
has been physically present in the State for a continuous
period of at least six months next preceding the
application therefor,]
(continued . . .)

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

attached to his motion, Husband asserted he thought the hearing

was at 2:30 p.m., rather than 2:00 p.m. At 1:00 p.m., while

preparing to leave, he checked JEFS and realized the hearing was

at 2:00 p.m. He left home, but "[t]raffic was slow." He

arrived at the courthouse at 2:01 p.m. Husband's declaration

provided no information regarding the inconvenient forum issue.

On February 3, the family court held a hearing on

Husband's motion for relief. Following arguments related to

Husband's assertion that default should be set aside for

excusable neglect, the family court stated, "while there may be

merit to that, the Court is declared an inconvenient forum, and

there's been so much that's occurred since the Court's default

that I would find that the issue is moot." The family court

then denied Husband's motion for relief and concluded that

Hawai‘i "will not exercise jurisdiction in this case.

Jurisdiction is appropriate in New Mexico[.]"

On February 13, the family court entered its Order

Denying Relief. The family court again concluded that Hawai‘i

"is an inconvenient forum for this matter and the New Mexico

(. . . continued)

Exclusive original jurisdiction in matters of
divorce, subject to section 603-37 as to change of venue,
and also subject to appeal according to law, is conferred
upon the family court of the circuit in which the applicant
is domiciled at the time the application is filed, except
as provided in subsection (b). . . .

2021 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 69, § 1 at 216.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

court has already asserted jurisdiction in this matter." The

family court denied Husband's motion for relief as moot.

On February 14, Husband moved for reconsideration.

Husband argued he was entitled to present evidence and to be

heard. Husband attached various exhibits. 3 The family court

entered its Order Denying Reconsideration on February 27.

Husband appealed. After Husband filed his opening

brief, but before Wife filed her answering brief, the family

court minutes show as follows: "Court conducts [Uniform Child

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)] conference on

record. New Mexico will have jurisdiction of this case under

UCCJEA." Present during the July 28, 2025 conference was Judge

James R. Rouse of Hawai‘i, and by telephone, Judge Amber Chavez

Baker of New Mexico, Husband, and Wife.

3 Husband's exhibits included the following:

• text messages and emails;
• JEFS "Printable Case View" for 2FDV-XX-XXXXXXX, involving
Husband's complaint for divorce filed in March 2024;
• Maui Police Department Case Summary Report dated March 27, 2024;
• "Register of Actions" for "Case No. D-202-DM-2024-03243" with
the Judicial Officer named as Judge Amber Chavez Baker. The
cause of action was identified as "Divorce with Custody," and
included a January 8, 2025 "Memorandum Order Setting Summary
Hour Hearing and Requiring Telephonic Appearance" and a
January 9, 2025 "Memorandum Order Setting Hearing." (Formatting
altered and emphasis added.) Both documents stated in part that
"[t]he Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject
matter herein" (emphasis added);
• the Order Denying Relief;
• the Dismissal Order; and
• the February 3, 2025 transcript for the hearing on Husband's
motion for relief.

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

On appeal, Husband contends the "family court erred by

ruling that Hawai‘i was an inconvenient forum to determine

[Child's] custody without an evidentiary hearing and an on-the-

record application of the factors in HRS § [583]A-207(b)"

(2018). 4

HRS § 583A-207 (2018) sets forth the jurisdictional

framework for interstate custody disputes where the family court

may decline to exercise jurisdiction if, after considering all

relevant factors, it determines it is an "inconvenient forum":

§ 583A-207 Inconvenient forum. (a) A court of this
State which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make a
child-custody determination may decline to exercise its
jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an
inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court
of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of
inconvenient forum may be raised upon the motion of a
party, the court's own motion, or request of another court.

(b) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient
forum, a court of this State shall consider whether it is
appropriate for a court of another state to exercise
jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the
parties to submit information and shall consider all
relevant factors, including:

(1) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is
likely to continue in the future and which state
could best protect the parties and the child;

(2) The length of time the child has resided outside
this State;

(3) The distance between the court in this State and
the court in the state that would assume
jurisdiction;

(4) The relative financial circumstances of the
parties;

4 Husband also challenges the entry of default and the tardiness of
Wife's motion to dismiss. Because we vacate as discussed below, we need not
reach these challenges; we note, however, that Wife's response to Husband's
Motion to Return Child raised the issue of inconvenient forum, not Wife's
motion to dismiss.

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

(5) Any agreement of the parties as to which state
should assume jurisdiction;

(6) The nature and location of the evidence required
to resolve the pending litigation, including
testimony of the child;

(7) The ability of the court of each state to decide
the issue expeditiously and the procedures
necessary to present the evidence;

(8) The familiarity of the court of each state with
the facts and issues in the pending litigation;
and

(9) The physical and psychological health of the
parties.

(c) If a court of this State determines that it is an
inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a
more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon
condition that a child-custody proceeding be promptly
commenced in another designated state and may impose any
other condition the court considers just and proper.

(d) A court of this State may decline to exercise its
jurisdiction under this chapter if a child-custody
determination is incidental to an action for divorce or
another proceeding, while still retaining jurisdiction over
the divorce or other proceeding.

(Formatting altered and emphases added.)

A child-custody proceeding "means a proceeding in

which legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with

respect to a child is an issue" and includes "a proceeding for

divorce . . . in which the issue may appear." HRS § 583A-102

(2018).

"A family court's decision to decline jurisdiction

under HRS § 583A-207 is reviewed for abuse of discretion." DL

v. CL, 150 Hawai‘i 467, 504 P.3d 1055, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022

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

WL 591822, at *6 (App. Feb. 28, 2022) (mem. op.) (citation

modified).

Before the family court determined that Hawai‘i was an

inconvenient forum in its Dismissal Order, Husband (self-

represented) submitted a declaration with his Motion to Return

Child. Although inconvenient forum had not yet been raised,

Husband declared Wife abandoned the Maui residence and absconded

with Child. Husband further asserted he did not consent to Wife

taking Child to New Mexico beyond visiting her family for the

holidays, and Wife exhibited erratic and destructive behavior

including violently attacking him.

Wife then raised inconvenient forum and provided a

declaration regarding Husband dragging her, throwing objects at

her head, and slapping her, and that she and Child were not safe

in Hawai‘i. Wife also stated she was grateful her parents

provide support for her and Child.

Both parties painted a dire financial picture. And it

was uncontested that Wife filed divorce proceedings in New

Mexico before Husband filed the current divorce proceedings in

Hawai‘i.

The family court determined Hawai‘i was an inconvenient

forum but made no findings related to the HRS § 583A-207(b)

factors. Based on the record, we cannot say the family court

complied with HRS § 583A-207.

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Husband then had two more opportunities to present

information related to the HRS § 583A-207(b) factors, in his

motion for relief and motion for reconsideration. Although

Husband's motion for relief did not address the HRS § 583A-

207(b) factors, Husband's motion for reconsideration did.

Husband argued Hawai‘i was the home state under HRS

§ 583A-201(1) (2018), the family court must confer with the New

Mexico court under HRS § 583A-110 (2018), and the family court

must consider the factors under HRS § 583A-207(b). Husband

attached an eight-page declaration and numerous exhibits to his

motion for reconsideration. One of the attached exhibits shows

the New Mexico court exercised jurisdiction over the "Divorce

with Custody" cause of action. 5

After considering the information provided by Husband,

the family court denied Husband's motion for reconsideration and

entered its findings of fact (FOF) and conclusions of law (COL).

FOF 41 states: "The court found that [Wife], was a victim of

domestic violence and that domestic violence was likely to

continue and New Mexico was the state that could best protect

mother and child." And COL 18 states: "After considering the

nine factors enumerated in the statute, the Court found that

[Wife] was leaving Hawaii to escape her abusive husband and that

5 See supra note 4 and accompanying text.

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

factor weighed heavily on the court's decision to find an

inconvenient forum." Husband challenges FOF 41 and COL 18. 6

FOF 41 and COL 18 were drafted in the past tense. We,

however, could not locate where in the record the family court

made a finding as to domestic violence or where it considered

all relevant factors under HRS § 583A-207(b). See DL, 2022 WL

591822, at *7 (holding it could not be determined whether the

family court abused its discretion where "[t]he court's

subsequent Order includes FOFs that may bear on some of the

statutory factors, but the Order does not address 'all relevant

factors' and fails to identify the factors that the court relied

on in declining jurisdiction under HRS § 583A-207" (emphasis

added)).

Moreover, the family court did not identify the

authority on which it relied for dismissing the divorce

proceeding. Id. ("To the extent that the Family Court declined

to exercise jurisdiction over issues in the underlying divorce

proceeding that do not involve the court's child-custody

determinations, the court did not identify the authority

6 Husband challenges numerous findings and all but one conclusion of
law. Husband, however, presents no specific argument as to why the
challenged findings are clearly erroneous or why the challenged conclusions
are wrong. We are not obligated to address matters where Husband fails to
present arguments for his challenged findings and conclusions. See Hawai‘i
Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(7); Hussey v. Say, 139 Hawai‘i 181,
191, 384 P.3d 1282, 1292 (2016) ("This court is not obliged to address
matters for which the appellants have failed to present discernible
arguments." (citation modified)).

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

supporting its decision." (emphasis added)); HRS § 583A-207(d)

(providing the family court may decline to exercise jurisdiction

over the child-custody determination but retain jurisdiction

over the divorce proceeding).

Although the New Mexico documents submitted by Husband

and the July 28, 2025 conference minutes appear to indicate New

Mexico exerted jurisdiction over the divorce proceeding and the

child-custody determination, the record does not show the family

court complied with HRS § 538A-207.

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

(1) December 31, 2024 Dismissal Order; (2) February 13, 2025

Order Denying Relief; (3) February 27, 2025 Order Denying

Reconsideration; and (4) May 14, 2025 Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law. We remand this case for further proceedings

consistent with this summary disposition order; any written

findings of fact in this case shall include citations to the

record that support each finding. Additionally, all pending

motions are denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 21, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Benjamin E. Lowenthal,
for Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Michael A. Glenn,
for Defendant-Appellee. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge