CourtListener 10866483

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
29-MAY-2026
07:58 AM
Dkt. 74 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

IN THE INTEREST OF L.B.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. 24-00063)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Guidry and Gluck, JJ.)

Mother-Appellant J.B. (Mother) appeals from the Family
Court of the First Circuit's (Family Court) August 5, 2025
"Order Granting the Department of Human Services [(DHS)] Child
Welfare Section's Request for Temporary Placement of the Child
with [D.B.] in California" (Order). 1 As the title of the Order
suggests, the Family Court granted DHS's request that Mother's
minor child, L.B., be temporarily placed with L.B.'s maternal
aunt, D.B., in California. Mother appeals, contending that
"[t]here was not sufficient evidence for the [Family Court] to
have found by preponderance of the evidence that it was in the
best interest of the child to be relocated, and in clear
violation of reasonable efforts to reunify, as erroneously found

1 The Honorable Courtney N. Naso presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

on Findings of Fact ('FOF') paragraphs 61, 62, 67, and
Conclusions of Law ('COL') paragraph 16."
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted, and having given due consideration to the arguments
advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Mother's contentions
as follows.
(1) COL 16 (Jurisdiction): Mother contends that the
Family Court's COL 16 was erroneous. In COL 16, the Family Court
concluded that Mother's Notice of Appeal (which had been filed
prior to the Family Court's entry of its FOFs and COLs) "should
be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction since it is
premature as it attempts to appeal an order that is not a final
order and it attempts to appeal the interlocutory order, despite
Mother not seeking or obtaining allowance from [the Family
Court] to file an interlocutory appeal." Both Mother and DHS
contend that this court has jurisdiction to review the Order;
Appellee-Guardian Ad Litem does not address jurisdiction in its
brief.
We agree with Mother and DHS that we have jurisdiction
to review Mother's appeal. Mother has been incarcerated and/or
placed at the Hawaiʻi State Hospital since May 2024, and
therefore has not had physical custody of L.B. for the last two
years. L.B. entered foster custody in July 2024. Therefore,
the principal effect of the Family Court's August 5, 2025 Order
was not a change in Mother's custody of L.B., but a change in
placement of L.B. (allowing D.B. to take L.B. to California).
Nevertheless, the Order still made a custody determination: the
Order provided that "[i]t is contrary to the immediate welfare
of [L.B.] to remain in the family home (specifically with
Mother)" and that "Mother is not willing or able to provide a
safe family home for [L.B.], even with the assistance of a
Family Service Plan." This is precisely the type of periodic
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

review of a custody arrangement that is appealable. As the
Hawaiʻi Supreme Court explained in In re Doe, 77 Hawaiʻi 109,
115, 883 P.2d 30, 36 (1994), in reviewing cases from other
jurisdictions:
The [Arizona Supreme Court] held that orders reaffirming
findings that children are dependent are also treated as
final appealable orders because "[f]rom a practical
perspective, each periodic review of a dependency
determination is a new determination of whether or not a
child is dependent." [In re Yavapai County Juvenile Action
No. J–8545, 680 P.2d 146, 150-51 (Ariz. 1984).] The court
reasoned that, despite the fact that a determination of
dependency does not dispose of all correlative matters,
such as assignment of legal custody, and notwithstanding
the possibility of duplicative or piecemeal appeals,

[a] parent denied and redenied control over his or
her children must have the right to appeal the
initial and subsequent denials. This does not mean
that he or she shall be able to challenge a custodial
arrangement every week or every month. What it means
is that an aggrieved party may appeal an order issued
pursuant to the juvenile court's periodic review of a
determination of dependency or of a custodial
arrangement[.] Though this may impose an additional
burden on our Court of Appeals, it is a burden the
Court of Appeals must bear in light of the
fundamental right at stake.

(Quoting Yavapai County, 680 P.2d at 150.) (Some alterations in
original and some added.) The Family Court's Order is
appealable, and we agree with Mother that COL 16 is erroneous.
As such, COL 16 is vacated. DHS, however, contends that any
error is harmless, and Mother does not explain how COL 16
affects the substance of the Family Court's Order. Thus,
although we vacate COL 16, it does not affect our analysis as to
the rest of the Order: we will exercise jurisdiction over this
appeal, and we turn now to Mother's remaining arguments.
(2) L.B.'s best interest and FOFs 61, 62, and 67:
Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to support
the Family Court's ultimate conclusion – that temporary
placement of L.B. in California with D.B. is in L.B.'s best

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

interest. As part of that argument, she contends that three
FOFs are clearly erroneous:
61. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
case, the DHS has exerted reasonable and active efforts to
avoid out-of-state placement for [L.B.]

62. The DHS social worker made reasonable and active
efforts to assist the [Resource Care Giver (RCG), L.B.'s
adult sibling] and alleviate any concerns.
. . . .
67. The DHS' continuing assessment in this case was
conducted in an appropriate manner.

Mother argues that RCG "would consider continuing to be the
resource care-giver in Hawaii if assisted by the court and DHS
regarding her scheduling and daycare" – in other words, L.B.
could have remained in Hawaiʻi if DHS had provided additional
resources (particularly child care placement) to RCG – resulting
in "clear violation of reasonable efforts to reunify."
"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." Hamilton
v. Hamilton, 138 Hawaiʻi 185, 197, 378 P.3d 901, 913 (2016)
(citation and block quote formatting omitted). The family court
abuses its discretion where it "disregard[s] rules or principles
of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party
litigant and its decision clearly exceed[s] the bounds of
reason." Id. "Because it is not the province of the appellate
court to reassess the credibility of the witnesses or the weight
of the evidence, as determined by the family court, the family
court is given much leeway in its examinations of the reports
concerning a child's care, custody, and welfare." In re AS, 130
Hawaiʻi 486, 501, 312 P.3d 1193, 1208 (App. 2013), aff'd, 132
Hawaiʻi 368, 322 P.3d 263 (2014) (citation and block quote
formatting omitted).

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

We review the family court's FOFs under the clearly
erroneous standard. "A FOF is clearly erroneous when (1) the
record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding, or
(2) despite substantial evidence in support of the finding, the
appellate court is nonetheless left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made." Hamilton, 138 Hawaiʻi
at 197, 378 P.3d at 913 (citation and block quote formatting
omitted). Additionally, "unchallenged factual findings are
deemed to be binding on appeal[.]" Okada Trucking Co., Ltd. v.
Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawaiʻi 450, 459, 40 P.3d 73, 82 (2002).
As to the Family Court's ultimate conclusion, there
was sufficient evidence to support the determination that it was
in the best interest of L.B. to be placed with D.B. in
California, and the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in
so ordering. Among the Family Court's unchallenged findings of
fact are the following:
42. After the presentation of the evidence was
completed, the Court found by a preponderance of the
evidence that based upon the reports submitted pursuant to
[Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS)] §[§] 587A-7 and 587A-18,
evidence and testimony adduced at the placement hearing and
the record herein, that there is an adequate basis to grant
DHS's request for [L.B.] to be placed with adult maternal
aunt, [D.B.,] in California.
. . . .
60. The DHS' social work, child protective and child
welfare assessments, opinions, and recommendations are
based upon the joint expertise of the social worker and the
social worker supervisor through the social worker's
consultation with the supervisor and the supervisor's
supervision and approval.
. . . .
63. The current RCG informed the DHS of her
difficulty in supporting [L.B.] due to her limited
financial resources and the lack of available childcare
programs.
. . . .
66. None of the underlying facts and data upon which
the DHS based its opinions, assessments, and
recommendations were shown to be untrustworthy.
. . . .
69. The Court found the DHS social worker Michael Lee
to be a credible witness, and this Court accepts his
testimony in whole.
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

. . . .
72. The Court found [RCG] to be a credible witness,
and this Court accepts her testimony in whole.

73. The Court found [D.B.] to be a credible witness,
and this Court accepts her testimony in whole.
. . . .
78. There are no subsidies for child care to help the
RCG afford child care for [L.B.] and no child care was
located in her residential area[.]

79. Although the RCG is [L.B.'s] adult sibling and
current Resource Caregiver, she testified credibly she
wants to be a "sister" and not a "single parent" to [L.B.]

80. The Court found the RCG credible in her testimony
that she is not capable to care for [L.B.] alone, without
assistance from [D.B.] due to several issues, not just
child care alone, but also due to the demands of her full-
time employment, lack of funds and the fact she [RCG] is
still young.

81. The RCG testified that [D.B.] is the primary
caregiver for [L.B.], has cared for [L.B.] more than the
RCG, and, as a result, [L.B.] is more bonded to [D.B.] than
to the RCG.

82. The RCG has needed to call in "sick" from work
and/or take time off from work when [D.B.] is not on Oʻahu
to help the RCG care for [L.B].

83. The RCG credibly testified [D.B.] takes [L.B.] to
the doctor and provides "all the nurturing" while RCG is at
work.

84. The RCG supports the placement of [L.B.] with
[D.B.] in California and testified credibly that the
Child's relationship with [D.B.] is "solid" and "bonded."
. . . .
90. RCG testified credibly that [D.B.] is the family
"matria[r]ch" and "backbone," was a second mom for RCG and
provided stable support for RCG, and is likewise now
providing love and affection and appropriate physical and
emotional support for [L.B].
. . . .
94. The Court found the RCG credible when she
testified it is her position that it would be in [L.B.'s]
best interest and promote improved mental health for the
RCG if [L.B.] was placed with [D.B.], whom the RCG believes
to be protective of [L.B.] and best equipped to raise and
care for [L.B.]
. . . .
100. Commencing in March 2025, [D.B.] was travelling
back and forth between California and Hawaiʻi to care for
[L.B.]

101. The Court found [D.B.] credible when she
explained the RCG often works "in the field," does not
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

always have set hours, sometimes is gone overnight, and the
RCG does not have any family support on Oʻahu.
. . . .
116. [D.B.] took leave from her full-time employment
to come to Hawaiʻi and help the RCG care for [L.B.], but now
needs to return to California to return to her full-time
employment.

117. [D.B.] has credible credentials and skills to
care for [L.B.] as a caregiver, and will place [L.B.] in
appropriate child care program . . . .
. . . .
119. [D.B.] is a protective person and protective of
[L.B.]
. . . .
123. The DHS utilized reasonable efforts and placed
[L.B.] with family.

124. The Court found Mr. Lee credible in his
testimony that he engaged with Mother regularly, but
acknowledged there was a lag in communication [at several
points].
. . . .
128. The DHS has concerns about the RCG's access to
resources and being able to maintain care for [L.B.]
without support from [D.B.]
. . . .
133. The Court found Mr. Lee credible when he
testified he reached out to child care providers, but
foster youth are not prioritized, so [L.B.] was placed on
waitlists.

134. Mr. Lee and [D.B.] both testified child care is
much more accessible in California.
. . . .
137. Mr. Lee observed [D.B.] and [L.B.] to be
"closely bonded" and [L.B.] appears to be comfortable with
[D.B.]

138. Mr. Lee credibly testified he has no concerns
with [D.B.'s] parenting skills and he observed her to
participate in age appropriate activities with [L.B].

139. The DHS prioritizes familial placement for
[L.B.]

140. Mr. Lee testified the DHS is in favor of [L.B.]
being placed with maternal aunt, [D.B.], in California.

141. The [Court Appointed Special Advocate] is in
favor of [L.B.] being placed with [D.B.] in California.

(Emphasis added.) Based on these unchallenged findings, the
Family Court concluded that placing L.B. with her aunt (with
whom she was bonded) in California (where childcare was
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

available), while Mother remained incarcerated and/or
hospitalized (and therefore unable to provide a stable home for
L.B.), was in L.B.'s best interest. RCG, on the other hand, did
not have good access to child care, did not have the capacity or
the resources to care for L.B. as a single "parent," and herself
believed that it was in L.B.'s best interest to be placed with
D.B. On this record, we conclude that substantial evidence
supported the Family Court's conclusion to place L.B. in
California with D.B.
Similarly, the Family Court's FOFs 61, 62, and 67 are
not clearly erroneous, as they are supported by other
(unchallenged) factual findings as set forth above. DHS
considered placement in Hawaiʻi: DHS concluded that the lack of
childcare was one factor – but not the only factor – that
prevented RCG from caring for L.B. in Hawaiʻi. DHS also prepared
and filed Safe Family Home Reports detailing its assessments and
its findings therefrom. True, "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). As the Family Court noted, however, this
requirement is qualified by the paramount concern of the Child
Protective Act (CPA) – the health and safety of the child – and
the CPA is to be "liberally construed to serve the best
interests of the children affected . . . ." HRS § 587A-2
(2018). The Family Court's FOFs are not clearly erroneous.
Moreover, there are numerous FOFs that are not challenged on
appeal that support the Family Court's conclusion that placing
L.B. with D.B. in California was in L.B.'s best interest. The
Family Court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this
determination.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the August 5, 2025
"Order Granting the Department of Human Services Child Welfare
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Section's Request for Temporary Placement of the Child with
[D.B.] in California."
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 29, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Tae Chin Kim,
Presiding Judge
for Mother-Appellant.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Franklin T. Fegurgur,
Associate Judge
for Petitioner-Appellee.
/s/ Daniel M. Gluck
Cheryl Y. Arakaki,
Associate Judge
For Court Appointed Special
Advocates.