P.C. v. G.S.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
12-JUN-2026
07:50 AM
Dkt. 112 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

P.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
G.S., Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3FDV-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

In this divorce case, the Family Court of the Third
Circuit awarded sole legal custody and primary physical custody
of two minor Children to G.S. (Father), and ordered P.C. (Mother)
to pay child support to Father.1 Mother, representing herself,
appeals from the February 10, 2025 Divorce Decree.2 Appeals
affecting child custody have priority under Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 571-54 (2018). We affirm.
The family court found, and Mother does not challenge,3
that: Mother and Father were legally married in February 2022.

1
The Honorable Jill M. Hasegawa presided.
2
Mother's opening brief does not comply with Rule 28(b) of the
Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP). To promote access to justice, we
do not automatically foreclose self-represented litigants from appellate
review if they don't comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai #i 368,
380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). Accordingly, we address what we discern
to be Mother's arguments. But we disregard the brief's appendices. See HRAP
Rule 28(b)(10) ("Anything that is not part of the record shall not be appended
to the brief[.]").
3
Unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal. Okada
Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawai #i 450, 459, 40 P.3d 73, 82
(2002).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Mother (representing herself) filed for divorce in
September 2023. A child custody evaluator was appointed. The
custody evaluator's report, dated June 8, 2024, was filed on
July 15, 2024.
A pretrial order was entered on September 13, 2024.
Trial was set for December 6, 2024. Witness lists, exhibit
lists, and exhibits were to be exchanged by November 22, 2024.
Counsel for Mother appeared on October 8, 2024. By
order entered on October 28, 2024, trial was rescheduled to
December 13, 2024, with the custody evaluator to testify by Zoom.
The deadline to exchange witness lists, exhibit lists, and
exhibits was extended to November 29, 2024.
(1) Trial began on December 13, 2024. The custody
evaluator testified, and her report was admitted in evidence.
Mother contends the family court erred by admitting and relying
on the custody evaluator's report and testimony "with no
articulated reliability basis at the decision point." She
appears to challenge the custody evaluator's qualifications.
The custody evaluator is a licensed psychologist. She
has been on the Judiciary's list of qualified custody evaluators
since 2016. See HRS § 571-46.4 (Supp. 2024). The family court
appointed her under HRS § 571-46(a)(4) (2018). Under the
statute, her report could be received in evidence if she was
available for cross-examination. She was extensively cross-
examined by Mother's counsel. The family court did not err by
admitting the custody evaluator's report and testimony.
Mother's other arguments challenge the custody
evaluator's credibility and the weight the family court gave her
report and testimony. "It is well-settled that an appellate
court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of
witnesses and the weight of evidence; this is the province of the
trier of fact." Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai#i 41, 46, 137 P.3d
355, 360 (2006).
(2) After the custody evaluator finished testifying,
the family court noted that Mother had not filed a witness or
exhibit list. Father's counsel stated, and Mother's counsel did

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

not deny, that Mother did not send a witness or exhibit list, or
exhibits, to Father.
Mother's counsel then asked to continue the trial "to
reset that, ah, exhibit list and exhibit exchange deadline and,
um, witness list filing deadline." The family court denied a
continuance. It explained:

With regards to the motion to continue, so I will note
that this trial was -- the trial dates of December were
initially set back in August. That was five months ago.
Um, I do know and note that in October the trial dates
were -- were pushed back a week, um, at the Court's request
and the deadlines were similarly extended for a week and
that was made very clear to the parties that they had
deadlines to file and/or exchange exhibits, exhibit lists,
witness lists.
While, [Mother], I know you were represented early on
in in [sic] the case. We've already had trials in your --
other related cases. You are aware of the Court's rules
regarding exhibits and exchanging those exhibits by
deadlines.

Similarly you did retain counsel. Um, at least by the
last court date, which was almost two months ago. So there
was time to get him those exhibits and meet those deadlines
timely.

Um, when considering whether or not the Court should
continue a trial the standard that I -- that I, um, and am
asked to review it on is based on whether there's good cause
to continue the trial.
Um, and based on the arguments that I've heard and the
representations of counsel, um, I do not find that there is
good cause to continue the trial.
In addition, I will note that, ah, as the parties are
aware, trial dates, we have very few all day trial dates
which only occur on Fridays.
Right now if I were to continue trial we would be
looking at trial dates in possibly March or April. And this
matter has been set since August. So I'm not going to be
continuing the trial at this time.

Mother contends the family court erred by denying a
continuance. We review for abuse of discretion. Weinberg v.
Dickson-Weinberg, 121 Hawai#i 401, 433, 220 P.3d 264, 296 (App.
2009), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 123 Hawai#i 68, 229 P.3d
1133 (2010).
This case is not like Weinberg, where "Wife was without
counsel during several critical weeks leading up to trial[,]" had

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

filed four pretrial motions asking to continue the pretrial
deadlines, and "the family court did not explain why it denied
Wife's various motions for an extension of pretrial deadlines,
except for one family-court judge who stated that he did not
believe he was authorized to grant an extension because two prior
motions for continuance had already been denied." 121 Hawai#i at
434–35, 220 P.3d at 297–98.
Mother's oral motion to continue was made on the first
day of trial, after the first witness's testimony had been
received. Her only reason for continuing the trial was to cure
her failure to comply with the pretrial deadlines. Although she
was unrepresented when those deadlines were set, she soon
retained counsel and was represented when the deadlines were
continued, and up to and including the trial. She gave no reason
for not complying with the deadlines. Nor did she explain what
witnesses she would call, what exhibits she would introduce, and
why the evidence would have been material. Under the
circumstances, the family court did not abuse its discretion by
declining to continue the trial once it had begun.
(3) The family court also precluded Mother from
offering any trial exhibits other than "financials" and
previously filed asset and debt and income and expense
statements, and calling any witnesses other than herself and
those on Father's witness list.
Rule 94.3 of the Hawai#i Family Court Rules addresses
pretrial disclosures and exhibits:

(a) Disclosures and exhibits. When a pre-trial
conference is held, except as and to the extent otherwise
ordered by the court:
(1) Each party shall disclose . . . the names and
addresses of all witnesses that the party intends to call.
(2) Each party shall submit to the other party by
the exchange date listed in the pre-trial order an Exhibit
List and all exhibits which are in the party’s possession or
under the party’s control which the party intends to offer
in evidence at the trial.
(3) Unless so disclosed and exchanged, no exhibits
required to be disclosed and exchanged by paragraph (2) of
this Rule shall be received in evidence at the trial over
objection unless the court finds that there was reasonable

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

ground for failing to disclose and exchange such exhibits
prior to trial.

The family court explained its ruling:

I made very clear when I set these trial dates that if a
party fails to file a witness list they could be precluded
from calling any witnesses aside from themselves to testify
at trial.

And the reason for that rule is to prevent trial by
ambush or trial by surprise. The other party needs to be
provided notice of who will be testifying so that if they
have any concerns or they need to do discovery they may do
so.
In addition, with regards to any exhibit lists it's
the same thing. The parties are ordered to exchange
exhibits before trial so the other party has the opportunity
to review those exhibits.

Again, this is not trial by surprise. This is trial
-- everyone should be prepared for trial and that includes
exchanging the exhibits so the other party has the
opportunity to review those exhibits before trial.

Mother gave no explanation for her failure to send her
witness and exhibit lists and proposed trial exhibits to Father.
Under these circumstances, it was within the family court's
discretion to preclude Mother from offering any trial exhibits
other than "financials" and previously filed asset and debt and
income and expense statements, and calling any witnesses other
than herself and those on Father's witness list.
(4) Mother contends the family court incorrectly
applied HRS § 571-46(a)(9), and entered insufficient findings and
conclusions, when deciding child custody.
The best interests of the child is the paramount
concern in child custody cases. W.N. v. S.M., 143 Hawai#i 128,
135, 424 P.3d 483, 490 (2018). HRS § 571-46(a) establishes
"standards, considerations, and procedures" to guide the family
court in awarding child custody. It provides:

(9) In every proceeding where there is at issue a dispute
as to the custody of a child, a determination by the
court that family violence has been committed by a
parent raises a rebuttable presumption that it is
detrimental to the child and not in the best interest
of the child to be placed in sole custody, joint legal
custody, or joint physical custody with the
perpetrator of family violence. In addition to other
factors that a court shall consider in a proceeding in

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

which the custody of a child or visitation by a parent
is at issue, and in which the court has made a finding
of family violence by a parent:
(A) The court shall consider as the primary factor
the safety and well-being of the child and of
the parent who is the victim of family violence;

(B) The court shall consider the perpetrator's
history of causing physical harm, bodily injury,
or assault or causing reasonable fear of
physical harm, bodily injury, or assault to
another person; and
(C) If a parent is absent or relocates because of an
act of family violence by the other parent, the
absence or relocation shall not be a factor that
weighs against the parent in determining custody
or visitation;

(10) A court may award visitation to a parent who has
committed family violence only if the court finds that
adequate provision can be made for the physical safety
and psychological well-being of the child and for the
safety of the parent who is a victim of family
violence[.]

"Family violence" means:

the occurrence of one or more of the following acts by a
family or household member, but does not include acts of
self-defense:

(1) Attempting to cause or causing physical harm to
another family or household member;

(2) Placing a family or household member in fear of
physical harm; or
(3) Causing a family or household member to engage
involuntarily in sexual activity by force,
threat of force, or duress.

HRS § 571-2 (2018).
The family court must consider evidence of domestic
violence when making a child custody determination. Tumaneng v.
Tumaneng, 138 Hawai#i 468, 475-76, 382 P.3d 280, 287-88 (2016).
But HRS § 571-46 "calls for a [best interests of the child]
determination based on all probative evidence." W.N., 143
Hawai#i at 136, 424 P.3d at 491 (emphasis added). Here, the
family court considered several HRS § 571-46 factors and found:

7. On or around March 22, 2024, Mother filed a
Petition for an Order for Protection on Behalf of Family or
Household Members in Case No. 3FDA-XX-XXXXXXX ("TRO
Petition"). . . .

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

. . . .
11. A trial on the TRO Petition was held before this
Court on May 13, 2024 and July 15, 2024. At the conclusion
of the trial on the TRO Petition, this Court found that
Mother had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
Father was the perpetrator of domestic violence as to
Mother, only as to the specific allegation in her TRO
Petition that Father had sex with Mother on numerous
occasions during their relationship while Mother was
sleeping. The Court did not find that Father exerted
extreme psychological abuse and/or coercive control over
Mother, notwithstanding Mother's allegations. Furthermore,
the Court did not find any merit as to Mother's allegations
that Father was abusive towards the children, and did not
include the children on the Order for Protection filed
7/15/2024.
. . . .

66. After gathering all the information noted in her
report, [the custody evaluator] conducted a risk-benefit
analysis of various custodial options and arrived at her
recommendations, including: an award of sole physical
custody to Father with Mother having generous day
visitations until Mother obtains a stable living situation;
an award of joint legal custody; the appointment of a
parenting coordinator or guardian ad litem; coparenting
classes; and therapy for Mother with a neutral therapist.

. . . .
1) HRS § 571-46(b)(1): "Any history of sexual
or physical abuse of a child by a parent."

164. There is no evidence that Father sexually or
physically abused the minor children.
. . . .

2) HRS § 571-46(b)(2): "Any history of
neglect or emotional abuse of a child by a
parent."

167. The Court finds that there was no neglect or
emotional abuse of the minor children by Father.
168. As to Mother, the Court recognizes there is a
history of emotional abuse by Mother as to Mother's three
older children, the [redacted] children, and finds credible
the allegations that Mother behaved in a similar manner with
Father and the minor children.
. . . .
169. While the minor children were probably too young
to remember or be affected by Mother's threats, the
testimony of [Mother's ex-husband] and [Mother's adult son]
reinforces the concern that this pattern of behavior and
threats by Mother to leave and abandon the children will
likely continue as they grow older, especially as Mother
refuses to acknowledge and change this type of behavior.

3) HRS § 571-46(b)(3): "The overall quality
of the parent-child relationship."

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

170. The Court finds both parents have a good
relationship with the minor children.
. . . .
173. However, the Court is concerned about and does
not find credible, the statements made by Mother, claiming
that the children are suffering from the time spent with
Father and laying the blame for the alleged change in the
children's behavior on Father. Mother's persistence in
believing that she is the better parent for the children,
and blaming Father's time with the children for what she
says is the children "waking up in the middle of the night
screaming and crying" and starting to bite, is consistent
with her behavior with the [older] children, wherein she
would blame [Mother's ex-husband] or the [older] children
for all the wrongs.
174. Furthermore, the Court is concerned about
Mother's ability to have a good parent-child relationship
with the children as they grow older and develop individual
personalities and preferences that may conflict with
Mother's preferences.

. . . .
5) HRS § 571-46(b)(5): "Each parent's
cooperation in developing and implementing
a plan to meet the child's ongoing needs,
interests, and schedule."

179. The Court has no concerns about Father's ability
to cooperate in developing and implementing a plan to meet
the children's ongoing needs, interest and schedule.

180. The Court has concerns as to Mother's ability to
cooperate in developing and implementing a plan to meet the
children's ongoing needs, interests and schedule.

181. Specifically, the Court finds that Mother has a
history of excluding Father from decision making and/or
unilaterally making decisions regarding the children without
informing or consulting Father, which is not in the
children's best interest.

. . . .
6) HRS § 571-46(b)(6): "The physical health
needs of the child."

182. The Court makes no finding in favor of either
Mother or Father insofar as the physical needs of the minor
children.
183. However, as discussed above, the Court does have
concerns about Mother's demonstrated history of making
unilateral decisions regarding the children without
consulting Father, even after the parties were separated and
shared joint legal custody.

184. In particular, Mother's decision to unilaterally
change the children's health care provider, without
consulting Father and notifying him in advance of the
change, could have significant negative health impacts for
the children in the future, especially if the health care

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

providers both treat the children with medications that
could have adverse effects if given together, and one
provider was not aware of the actions of the other, etc.
185. Additionally, the Court is concerned with
Mother's lack of transparency with regards to the children's
medical conditions, and apparent disregard of the need to
inform Father in a timely manner.
. . . .

7) HRS § 571-46(b)(7): "The emotional needs
of the child."
186. As to the emotional needs of the minor children,
the Court finds in favor of Father.
187. The Court is concerned about Mother's abilities
to ensure the emotional needs of the children are met,
especially after hearing the testimony of [the custody
evaluator], [Mother's ex-husband], and [Mother's adult son],
that Mother's adult children are estranged from each other
and Mother, as discussed above.

. . . .
8) HRS § 571-46(b)(8): "The safety needs of
the child."

. . . .

191. Based on the testimony before this Court, and in
particular the [custody evaluator's] Report and observations
of Father's home, the Court does not have any concerns about
the children's safety needs when in Father's care.

. . . .
9) HRS § 571-46(b)(9): "The educational needs
of the child."
194. Concerning the minor children's educational
needs, the Court is mostly neutral.

195. The Court does have some concerns about Mother's
ability to address the educational needs of the children
based on the testimony of [Mother's ex-husband] and
[Mother's adult son], as well as statements made to [the
custody evaluator] contained in [her] Report.

196. Specifically, the Court is concerned about
Mother's prior behavior when confronted with educational
issues involving the [older] children.
197. Specifically, the Court found credible the
testimony of [Mother's ex-husband] that when their daughter
. . . was in 2 nd grade and was having difficulty reading,
Mother would slap [daughter]'s head and tell her to "stop
being stupid" and force her to read.

. . . .
199. The Court also found credible [Mother's ex-
husband]'s testimony that as the [older] children got older,
if Mother felt that they weren't trying hard enough, she
would yell at them to "[not] be stupid", even in front of
the children's friends, making the children embarrassed.

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

. . . .
10) HRS § 571-46(b)(10): "The child's need for
relationships with siblings."

202. As for the minor children's relationship with
their siblings, the Court finds in favor of Father.
. . . .

204. The children have three (3) adult half-siblings
through Mother. Mother is estranged from all of these adult
children, and it does not appear that the children will have
a relationship with their adult half-siblings when they are
with Mother.
205. It appears that Father may [have] some
relationship with Mother's adult children, and would
continue to foster a relationship between Mother's adult
children and the minor children, should they wish it.
206. [Mother's adult son] testified that he has
chosen not to interact with the children when they are with
Mother. However, [Mother's adult son] indicated that he has
been present on several occasions when Mother was not
around, and has interacted with Father and the children.
. . . .

14) HRS § 571-46(b)(14): "The mental health of
each parent."
216. As to the mental health of the parties, the
Court has no concerns as to Father, but has concerns about
Mother.
217. The Court found compelling the testimony of [the
custody evaluator] as to this issue and her concerns about
[Mother]'s mental health.
218. In addition, based on the testimony of [Mother's
ex-husband] and [Mother's adult son], the Court does believe
that Mother has mental health issues that need to be
acknowledged and addressed before she can fully parent the
children in their best interest.
15) HRS § 571-46(b)(15): "The areas and levels
of conflict present within the family."

219. As to the areas and levels of conflict within
the family, the Court finds in favor of Father.
220. The Court is concerned about Mother's parenting.
It is clear she raised responsible older adults. However,
based on the testimony before the Court, it is clear that as
her other children got older and challenged Mother, as
children are wont to do, Mother's response was not
appropriate. The Court is concerned that without therapy or
treatment to address her issues, as the minor children get
older and start to challenge Mother, they will also face the
same issues, which is not in their best interest. Mother
needs to address her parenting style.

(Bold italics added.)

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The family court appropriately addressed HRS
§ 571-46(a)(9), as well as many other factors in the statute.
"Because there was evidence produced, including [the custody
evaluator]'s report, that it was in the [C]hildren's best
interests for [Father] to be awarded sole legal and physical
custody of the [C]hildren, the presumption created by HRS
§ 571–46(9) . . . [was] effectively rebutted." Rezentes v.
Rezentes, 88 Hawai#i 200, 209, 965 P.2d 133, 142 (App. 1998).
The family court's findings of facts were supported by
substantial evidence. The court concluded that "it would be in
the children's best interest to award Father sole legal and
physical custody of the children at this time." That conclusion
was supported by the family court's findings of fact and
reflected an application of the correct rule of law; it will not
be overturned. Est. of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai#i
332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007).
(5) Mother contends that the family court's
"cumulative error & downstream effects" require vacating the
court's child custody ruling. As discussed above, there was no
error. There is nothing to cumulate.
Mother argues the family court "erred by entering child
support orders referencing a Guidelines Worksheet that does not
appear in the record[.]" The completed Child Support Guidelines
Worksheet is attached as Exhibit "A" to the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order Re: (1) Divorce Decree Filed
February 10, 2025.
Mother argues "[c]hild support must be vacated and
recalculated on remand following corrected custody/time-sharing
findings and supported factual determinations." There is no need
to recalculate child support because we are affirming the family
court's child custody determination.
Mother argues "[p]roperty division and reimbursement/
equalization determinations require reconsideration on remand
because the record was constrained by the preclusion order." The
family court acted within its discretion by precluding Mother
from offering any trial exhibits other than "financials" and
previously filed asset and debt and income and expense

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

statements, and calling any witnesses other than herself and
those on Father's witness list. And the family court stated it
"accepts the parties' agreement that each shall keep the assets
in their names and be responsible for the debts in their names."
Mother does not dispute there was an agreement. Mother offers no
other argument about why the family court erred by not awarding
either party a property division equalization payment.
The February 10, 2025 Divorce Decree is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 12, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
P.C., Presiding Judge
Self-represented
Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
G.S.,
Self-represented /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Defendant-Appellee. Associate Judge

12

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

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
12-JUN-2026
07:50 AM
Dkt. 112 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

P.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
G.S., Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3FDV-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

In this divorce case, the Family Court of the Third
Circuit awarded sole legal custody and primary physical custody
of two minor Children to G.S. (Father), and ordered P.C. (Mother)
to pay child support to Father.1 Mother, representing herself,
appeals from the February 10, 2025 Divorce Decree.2 Appeals
affecting child custody have priority under Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 571-54 (2018). We affirm.
The family court found, and Mother does not challenge,3
that: Mother and Father were legally married in February 2022.

1
The Honorable Jill M. Hasegawa presided.
2
Mother's opening brief does not comply with Rule 28(b) of the
Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP). To promote access to justice, we
do not automatically foreclose self-represented litigants from appellate
review if they don't comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai #i 368,
380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). Accordingly, we address what we discern
to be Mother's arguments. But we disregard the brief's appendices. See HRAP
Rule 28(b)(10) ("Anything that is not part of the record shall not be appended
to the brief[.]").
3
Unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal. Okada
Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawai #i 450, 459, 40 P.3d 73, 82
(2002).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Mother (representing herself) filed for divorce in
September 2023. A child custody evaluator was appointed. The
custody evaluator's report, dated June 8, 2024, was filed on
July 15, 2024.
A pretrial order was entered on September 13, 2024.
Trial was set for December 6, 2024. Witness lists, exhibit
lists, and exhibits were to be exchanged by November 22, 2024.
Counsel for Mother appeared on October 8, 2024. By
order entered on October 28, 2024, trial was rescheduled to
December 13, 2024, with the custody evaluator to testify by Zoom.
The deadline to exchange witness lists, exhibit lists, and
exhibits was extended to November 29, 2024.
(1) Trial began on December 13, 2024. The custody
evaluator testified, and her report was admitted in evidence.
Mother contends the family court erred by admitting and relying
on the custody evaluator's report and testimony "with no
articulated reliability basis at the decision point." She
appears to challenge the custody evaluator's qualifications.
The custody evaluator is a licensed psychologist. She
has been on the Judiciary's list of qualified custody evaluators
since 2016. See HRS § 571-46.4 (Supp. 2024). The family court
appointed her under HRS § 571-46(a)(4) (2018). Under the
statute, her report could be received in evidence if she was
available for cross-examination. She was extensively cross-
examined by Mother's counsel. The family court did not err by
admitting the custody evaluator's report and testimony.
Mother's other arguments challenge the custody
evaluator's credibility and the weight the family court gave her
report and testimony. "It is well-settled that an appellate
court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of
witnesses and the weight of evidence; this is the province of the
trier of fact." Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai#i 41, 46, 137 P.3d
355, 360 (2006).
(2) After the custody evaluator finished testifying,
the family court noted that Mother had not filed a witness or
exhibit list. Father's counsel stated, and Mother's counsel did

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

not deny, that Mother did not send a witness or exhibit list, or
exhibits, to Father.
Mother's counsel then asked to continue the trial "to
reset that, ah, exhibit list and exhibit exchange deadline and,
um, witness list filing deadline." The family court denied a
continuance. It explained:

With regards to the motion to continue, so I will note
that this trial was -- the trial dates of December were
initially set back in August. That was five months ago.

Um, I do know and note that in October the trial dates
were -- were pushed back a week, um, at the Court's request
and the deadlines were similarly extended for a week and
that was made very clear to the parties that they had
deadlines to file and/or exchange exhibits, exhibit lists,
witness lists.

While, [Mother], I know you were represented early on
in in [sic] the case. We've already had trials in your --
other related cases. You are aware of the Court's rules
regarding exhibits and exchanging those exhibits by
deadlines.

Similarly you did retain counsel. Um, at least by the
last court date, which was almost two months ago. So there
was time to get him those exhibits and meet those deadlines
timely.
Um, when considering whether or not the Court should
continue a trial the standard that I -- that I, um, and am
asked to review it on is based on whether there's good cause
to continue the trial.

Um, and based on the arguments that I've heard and the
representations of counsel, um, I do not find that there is
good cause to continue the trial.

In addition, I will note that, ah, as the parties are
aware, trial dates, we have very few all day trial dates
which only occur on Fridays.
Right now if I were to continue trial we would be
looking at trial dates in possibly March or April. And this
matter has been set since August. So I'm not going to be
continuing the trial at this time.

Mother contends the family court erred by denying a
continuance. We review for abuse of discretion. Weinberg v.
Dickson-Weinberg, 121 Hawai#i 401, 433, 220 P.3d 264, 296 (App.
2009), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 123 Hawai#i 68, 229 P.3d
1133 (2010).
This case is not like Weinberg, where "Wife was without
counsel during several critical weeks leading up to trial[,]" had

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

filed four pretrial motions asking to continue the pretrial
deadlines, and "the family court did not explain why it denied
Wife's various motions for an extension of pretrial deadlines,
except for one family-court judge who stated that he did not
believe he was authorized to grant an extension because two prior
motions for continuance had already been denied." 121 Hawai#i at
434–35, 220 P.3d at 297–98.
Mother's oral motion to continue was made on the first
day of trial, after the first witness's testimony had been
received. Her only reason for continuing the trial was to cure
her failure to comply with the pretrial deadlines. Although she
was unrepresented when those deadlines were set, she soon
retained counsel and was represented when the deadlines were
continued, and up to and including the trial. She gave no reason
for not complying with the deadlines. Nor did she explain what
witnesses she would call, what exhibits she would introduce, and
why the evidence would have been material. Under the
circumstances, the family court did not abuse its discretion by
declining to continue the trial once it had begun.
(3) The family court also precluded Mother from
offering any trial exhibits other than "financials" and
previously filed asset and debt and income and expense
statements, and calling any witnesses other than herself and
those on Father's witness list.
Rule 94.3 of the Hawai#i Family Court Rules addresses
pretrial disclosures and exhibits:

(a) Disclosures and exhibits. When a pre-trial
conference is held, except as and to the extent otherwise
ordered by the court:

(1) Each party shall disclose . . . the names and
addresses of all witnesses that the party intends to call.
(2) Each party shall submit to the other party by
the exchange date listed in the pre-trial order an Exhibit
List and all exhibits which are in the party’s possession or
under the party’s control which the party intends to offer
in evidence at the trial.
(3) Unless so disclosed and exchanged, no exhibits
required to be disclosed and exchanged by paragraph (2) of
this Rule shall be received in evidence at the trial over
objection unless the court finds that there was reasonable

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

ground for failing to disclose and exchange such exhibits
prior to trial.

The family court explained its ruling:

I made very clear when I set these trial dates that if a
party fails to file a witness list they could be precluded
from calling any witnesses aside from themselves to testify
at trial.
And the reason for that rule is to prevent trial by
ambush or trial by surprise. The other party needs to be
provided notice of who will be testifying so that if they
have any concerns or they need to do discovery they may do
so.

In addition, with regards to any exhibit lists it's
the same thing. The parties are ordered to exchange
exhibits before trial so the other party has the opportunity
to review those exhibits.

Again, this is not trial by surprise. This is trial
-- everyone should be prepared for trial and that includes
exchanging the exhibits so the other party has the
opportunity to review those exhibits before trial.

Mother gave no explanation for her failure to send her
witness and exhibit lists and proposed trial exhibits to Father.
Under these circumstances, it was within the family court's
discretion to preclude Mother from offering any trial exhibits
other than "financials" and previously filed asset and debt and
income and expense statements, and calling any witnesses other
than herself and those on Father's witness list.
(4) Mother contends the family court incorrectly
applied HRS § 571-46(a)(9), and entered insufficient findings and
conclusions, when deciding child custody.
The best interests of the child is the paramount
concern in child custody cases. W.N. v. S.M., 143 Hawai#i 128,
135, 424 P.3d 483, 490 (2018). HRS § 571-46(a) establishes
"standards, considerations, and procedures" to guide the family
court in awarding child custody. It provides:

(9) In every proceeding where there is at issue a dispute
as to the custody of a child, a determination by the
court that family violence has been committed by a
parent raises a rebuttable presumption that it is
detrimental to the child and not in the best interest
of the child to be placed in sole custody, joint legal
custody, or joint physical custody with the
perpetrator of family violence. In addition to other
factors that a court shall consider in a proceeding in

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

which the custody of a child or visitation by a parent
is at issue, and in which the court has made a finding
of family violence by a parent:

(A) The court shall consider as the primary factor
the safety and well-being of the child and of
the parent who is the victim of family violence;

(B) The court shall consider the perpetrator's
history of causing physical harm, bodily injury,
or assault or causing reasonable fear of
physical harm, bodily injury, or assault to
another person; and

(C) If a parent is absent or relocates because of an
act of family violence by the other parent, the
absence or relocation shall not be a factor that
weighs against the parent in determining custody
or visitation;
(10) A court may award visitation to a parent who has
committed family violence only if the court finds that
adequate provision can be made for the physical safety
and psychological well-being of the child and for the
safety of the parent who is a victim of family
violence[.]

"Family violence" means:

the occurrence of one or more of the following acts by a
family or household member, but does not include acts of
self-defense:

(1) Attempting to cause or causing physical harm to
another family or household member;

(2) Placing a family or household member in fear of
physical harm; or

(3) Causing a family or household member to engage
involuntarily in sexual activity by force,
threat of force, or duress.

HRS § 571-2 (2018).
The family court must consider evidence of domestic
violence when making a child custody determination. Tumaneng v.
Tumaneng, 138 Hawai#i 468, 475-76, 382 P.3d 280, 287-88 (2016).
But HRS § 571-46 "calls for a [best interests of the child]
determination based on all probative evidence." W.N., 143
Hawai#i at 136, 424 P.3d at 491 (emphasis added). Here, the
family court considered several HRS § 571-46 factors and found:

7. On or around March 22, 2024, Mother filed a
Petition for an Order for Protection on Behalf of Family or
Household Members in Case No. 3FDA-XX-XXXXXXX ("TRO
Petition"). . . .

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

. . . .
11. A trial on the TRO Petition was held before this
Court on May 13, 2024 and July 15, 2024. At the conclusion
of the trial on the TRO Petition, this Court found that
Mother had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
Father was the perpetrator of domestic violence as to
Mother, only as to the specific allegation in her TRO
Petition that Father had sex with Mother on numerous
occasions during their relationship while Mother was
sleeping. The Court did not find that Father exerted
extreme psychological abuse and/or coercive control over
Mother, notwithstanding Mother's allegations. Furthermore,
the Court did not find any merit as to Mother's allegations
that Father was abusive towards the children, and did not
include the children on the Order for Protection filed
7/15/2024.
. . . .

66. After gathering all the information noted in her
report, [the custody evaluator] conducted a risk-benefit
analysis of various custodial options and arrived at her
recommendations, including: an award of sole physical
custody to Father with Mother having generous day
visitations until Mother obtains a stable living situation;
an award of joint legal custody; the appointment of a
parenting coordinator or guardian ad litem; coparenting
classes; and therapy for Mother with a neutral therapist.

. . . .

1) HRS § 571-46(b)(1): "Any history of sexual
or physical abuse of a child by a parent."

164. There is no evidence that Father sexually or
physically abused the minor children.
. . . .

2) HRS § 571-46(b)(2): "Any history of
neglect or emotional abuse of a child by a
parent."
167. The Court finds that there was no neglect or
emotional abuse of the minor children by Father.

168. As to Mother, the Court recognizes there is a
history of emotional abuse by Mother as to Mother's three
older children, the [redacted] children, and finds credible
the allegations that Mother behaved in a similar manner with
Father and the minor children.
. . . .

169. While the minor children were probably too young
to remember or be affected by Mother's threats, the
testimony of [Mother's ex-husband] and [Mother's adult son]
reinforces the concern that this pattern of behavior and
threats by Mother to leave and abandon the children will
likely continue as they grow older, especially as Mother
refuses to acknowledge and change this type of behavior.
3) HRS § 571-46(b)(3): "The overall quality
of the parent-child relationship."

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

170. The Court finds both parents have a good
relationship with the minor children.
. . . .
173. However, the Court is concerned about and does
not find credible, the statements made by Mother, claiming
that the children are suffering from the time spent with
Father and laying the blame for the alleged change in the
children's behavior on Father. Mother's persistence in
believing that she is the better parent for the children,
and blaming Father's time with the children for what she
says is the children "waking up in the middle of the night
screaming and crying" and starting to bite, is consistent
with her behavior with the [older] children, wherein she
would blame [Mother's ex-husband] or the [older] children
for all the wrongs.

174. Furthermore, the Court is concerned about
Mother's ability to have a good parent-child relationship
with the children as they grow older and develop individual
personalities and preferences that may conflict with
Mother's preferences.
. . . .

5) HRS § 571-46(b)(5): "Each parent's
cooperation in developing and implementing
a plan to meet the child's ongoing needs,
interests, and schedule."

179. The Court has no concerns about Father's ability
to cooperate in developing and implementing a plan to meet
the children's ongoing needs, interest and schedule.

180. The Court has concerns as to Mother's ability to
cooperate in developing and implementing a plan to meet the
children's ongoing needs, interests and schedule.

181. Specifically, the Court finds that Mother has a
history of excluding Father from decision making and/or
unilaterally making decisions regarding the children without
informing or consulting Father, which is not in the
children's best interest.

. . . .
6) HRS § 571-46(b)(6): "The physical health
needs of the child."

182. The Court makes no finding in favor of either
Mother or Father insofar as the physical needs of the minor
children.
183. However, as discussed above, the Court does have
concerns about Mother's demonstrated history of making
unilateral decisions regarding the children without
consulting Father, even after the parties were separated and
shared joint legal custody.

184. In particular, Mother's decision to unilaterally
change the children's health care provider, without
consulting Father and notifying him in advance of the
change, could have significant negative health impacts for
the children in the future, especially if the health care

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

providers both treat the children with medications that
could have adverse effects if given together, and one
provider was not aware of the actions of the other, etc.
185. Additionally, the Court is concerned with
Mother's lack of transparency with regards to the children's
medical conditions, and apparent disregard of the need to
inform Father in a timely manner.

. . . .

7) HRS § 571-46(b)(7): "The emotional needs
of the child."
186. As to the emotional needs of the minor children,
the Court finds in favor of Father.
187. The Court is concerned about Mother's abilities
to ensure the emotional needs of the children are met,
especially after hearing the testimony of [the custody
evaluator], [Mother's ex-husband], and [Mother's adult son],
that Mother's adult children are estranged from each other
and Mother, as discussed above.
. . . .
8) HRS § 571-46(b)(8): "The safety needs of
the child."

. . . .

191. Based on the testimony before this Court, and in
particular the [custody evaluator's] Report and observations
of Father's home, the Court does not have any concerns about
the children's safety needs when in Father's care.

. . . .
9) HRS § 571-46(b)(9): "The educational needs
of the child."

194. Concerning the minor children's educational
needs, the Court is mostly neutral.

195. The Court does have some concerns about Mother's
ability to address the educational needs of the children
based on the testimony of [Mother's ex-husband] and
[Mother's adult son], as well as statements made to [the
custody evaluator] contained in [her] Report.

196. Specifically, the Court is concerned about
Mother's prior behavior when confronted with educational
issues involving the [older] children.
197. Specifically, the Court found credible the
testimony of [Mother's ex-husband] that when their daughter
. . . was in 2 nd grade and was having difficulty reading,
Mother would slap [daughter]'s head and tell her to "stop
being stupid" and force her to read.
. . . .
199. The Court also found credible [Mother's ex-
husband]'s testimony that as the [older] children got older,
if Mother felt that they weren't trying hard enough, she
would yell at them to "[not] be stupid", even in front of
the children's friends, making the children embarrassed.

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

. . . .
10) HRS § 571-46(b)(10): "The child's need for
relationships with siblings."
202. As for the minor children's relationship with
their siblings, the Court finds in favor of Father.
. . . .
204. The children have three (3) adult half-siblings
through Mother. Mother is estranged from all of these adult
children, and it does not appear that the children will have
a relationship with their adult half-siblings when they are
with Mother.
205. It appears that Father may [have] some
relationship with Mother's adult children, and would
continue to foster a relationship between Mother's adult
children and the minor children, should they wish it.
206. [Mother's adult son] testified that he has
chosen not to interact with the children when they are with
Mother. However, [Mother's adult son] indicated that he has
been present on several occasions when Mother was not
around, and has interacted with Father and the children.
. . . .

14) HRS § 571-46(b)(14): "The mental health of
each parent."

216. As to the mental health of the parties, the
Court has no concerns as to Father, but has concerns about
Mother.

217. The Court found compelling the testimony of [the
custody evaluator] as to this issue and her concerns about
[Mother]'s mental health.
218. In addition, based on the testimony of [Mother's
ex-husband] and [Mother's adult son], the Court does believe
that Mother has mental health issues that need to be
acknowledged and addressed before she can fully parent the
children in their best interest.
15) HRS § 571-46(b)(15): "The areas and levels
of conflict present within the family."
219. As to the areas and levels of conflict within
the family, the Court finds in favor of Father.

220. The Court is concerned about Mother's parenting.
It is clear she raised responsible older adults. However,
based on the testimony before the Court, it is clear that as
her other children got older and challenged Mother, as
children are wont to do, Mother's response was not
appropriate. The Court is concerned that without therapy or
treatment to address her issues, as the minor children get
older and start to challenge Mother, they will also face the
same issues, which is not in their best interest. Mother
needs to address her parenting style.

(Bold italics added.)

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The family court appropriately addressed HRS
§ 571-46(a)(9), as well as many other factors in the statute.
"Because there was evidence produced, including [the custody
evaluator]'s report, that it was in the [C]hildren's best
interests for [Father] to be awarded sole legal and physical
custody of the [C]hildren, the presumption created by HRS
§ 571–46(9) . . . [was] effectively rebutted." Rezentes v.
Rezentes, 88 Hawai#i 200, 209, 965 P.2d 133, 142 (App. 1998).
The family court's findings of facts were supported by
substantial evidence. The court concluded that "it would be in
the children's best interest to award Father sole legal and
physical custody of the children at this time." That conclusion
was supported by the family court's findings of fact and
reflected an application of the correct rule of law; it will not
be overturned. Est. of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai#i
332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007).
(5) Mother contends that the family court's
"cumulative error & downstream effects" require vacating the
court's child custody ruling. As discussed above, there was no
error. There is nothing to cumulate.
Mother argues the family court "erred by entering child
support orders referencing a Guidelines Worksheet that does not
appear in the record[.]" The completed Child Support Guidelines
Worksheet is attached as Exhibit "A" to the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order Re: (1) Divorce Decree Filed
February 10, 2025.
Mother argues "[c]hild support must be vacated and
recalculated on remand following corrected custody/time-sharing
findings and supported factual determinations." There is no need
to recalculate child support because we are affirming the family
court's child custody determination.
Mother argues "[p]roperty division and reimbursement/
equalization determinations require reconsideration on remand
because the record was constrained by the preclusion order." The
family court acted within its discretion by precluding Mother
from offering any trial exhibits other than "financials" and
previously filed asset and debt and income and expense

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

statements, and calling any witnesses other than herself and
those on Father's witness list. And the family court stated it
"accepts the parties' agreement that each shall keep the assets
in their names and be responsible for the debts in their names."
Mother does not dispute there was an agreement. Mother offers no
other argument about why the family court erred by not awarding
either party a property division equalization payment.
The February 10, 2025 Divorce Decree is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 12, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
P.C., Presiding Judge
Self-represented
Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
G.S.,
Self-represented /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Defendant-Appellee. Associate Judge

12