A.C. v. State

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
05-MAY-2025
07:53 AM
Dkt. 97 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

A.C., Individually and as Guardian Prochien Ami
for JANE DOE, A Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
STATE OF HAWAII, Defendant/Cross-claimant/
Cross-claim Defendant-Appellee; N.P., Defendant/
Cross-claim Defendant/Cross-claimant-Appellee,
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 5CC181000124)

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

A.C. (Mother) and N.P. (Father) are Child's parents.
This is their third case before us. We take judicial notice
under Hawaii Rules of Evidence Rule 201 (2016) of the other two,
Judiciary Information Management System (JIMS) case
no. 5DA161000193 (the Order for Protection Case), see AC v. NP,
No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2018 WL 6258563 (Haw. App. Nov. 29, 2018)
(SDO), cert. rejected, SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 1760785 (Haw.
Apr. 18, 2019); and JIMS case no. 5PP171000013 (the Custody
Case), N.P. v. A.C., No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 2992353 (Haw.
App. June 13, 2024) (SDO).
In this civil tort case, Mother appeals from the
August 1, 2022 Judgment for the State of Hawai#i entered by the
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit.1 She challenges the May 22,
2022 "Order Granting Defendant State of Hawaii's Motion for
Summary Judgment" and the June 29, 2022 clerk's taxation of
costs. We affirm.
Mother filed the Order for Protection Case in 2016,
alleging that Father had sexually abused Child. The family court
issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Father. On
February 1, 2017, the family court entered an order for
protection (OFP) against Father. Father appealed, alleging
evidentiary error. We affirmed. A.C. v. N.P., 2018 WL 6258563.
Father filed the Custody Case on May 4, 2017. Mother
was the respondent. The family court held a trial on
September 18 and 19, 2018, and February 19, 2019. Extensive
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order were entered
on June 6, 2019. The family court found that Father did not
sexually abuse Child and the allegations against Father were
false. The family court found that the State, the Children's
Justice Center, and the Kaua#i Police Department conducted
"careful and diligent investigations" and, together with Child's
long-term therapists, "found no basis to confirm or corroborate
the allegations of sex abuse by Father[.]"
Of significance to this appeal, the family court also
found that "the State of Hawaii Child Welfare Services acted
diligently, appropriately and with due care in investigating the
allegations of sex abuse of [Child]," and explained its finding
in detail. The family court found that Mother was unhappy with
the outcome of the "multiple unbiased and impartial
investigations" of her allegations, and went "'doctor shopping'
until she located a new team of therapists who were willing to
support [her] claims of sexual abuse, despite the mountain of
objective evidence to the contrary." Citing HRS § 586-4(d), the
family court ordered that its findings, conclusions, and orders
in the Custody Case shall supersede the TRO and OFP entered in

1
The Honorable Kathleen N.A. Watanabe presided.

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

the Order for Protection Case. The family court dissolved the
OFP.
On August 19, 2019, the family court in the Order for
Protection Case entered an order dissolving the OFP. Mother did
not appeal the order. Four years later, however, she moved in
the Custody Case to set aside the August 19, 2019 order
dissolving the OFP in the Order for Protection Case. The family
court denied her motion. She appealed. She argued that the
Custody Case court had no jurisdiction to dissolve the OFP. We
held the issue was moot because Mother didn't appeal from the
order dissolving the OFP in the Order for Protection Case. N.P.
v. A.C., 2024 WL 2992353, at *2. Mother also argued it was
improper for the family court in the Order for Protection Case to
even consider Father's motion to dissolve the OFP because the
family court in the Custody Case had no jurisdiction to set aside
the OFP. We held the family court's actions in the Order for
Protection Case were not before us in the appeal from the Custody
Case. Id.
On August 28, 2018, Mother, for herself and as Child's
guardian, filed the action below against the State and Father.
The complaint alleged that Child told her pediatrician she had
been sexually abused by Father; the pediatrician reported this to
the State; but the State failed to take appropriate action. It
pleaded negligence against the State and assault and battery,
negligence, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress against Father.
Father petitioned the circuit court for a determination
that a settlement to be paid by his liability insurer was in good
faith. An order granting Father's petition was entered on
January 22, 2022. A stipulation and order dismissing Father from
the lawsuit was filed on February 23, 2022. Father is not a
party to this appeal.
The State moved for summary judgment (MSJ) on April 4,
2022. An order granting the MSJ was entered on May 27, 2022.
The circuit court clerk taxed costs against Mother on June 29,

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

2022. The Judgment was entered on August 1, 2022. This appeal
followed.
Mother states a single point of error: summary judgment
was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact
about whether Father sexually abused Child, and the family court
in the Custody Case incorrectly applied HRS § 586-4(d) to find
"that [Father] was not a sex abuser even though the [Order for
Protection Case] judge had determined that [Father] was a sex
abuser and this Court had affirmed the [OFP] on appeal."
We review an award of summary judgment de novo under
the same standard applied by the circuit court. Dorrance v. Lee,
90 Hawai#i 143, 145, 976 P.2d 904, 906 (1999). Summary judgment
is appropriate if the record shows there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Id. The evidence is viewed in the
light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Id.
The State's MSJ was based on collateral estoppel, also
known as issue preclusion. Collateral estoppel bars relitigating
an issue where: (1) the identical issue was decided in a previous
case; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the issue
decided was essential to the judgment; and (4) the party against
whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity
with a party to the previous case. Dorrance, 90 Hawai#i at 149,
976 P.2d at 910. Collateral estoppel may be raised defensively
by one not a party to the previous case against one who was a
party to the case and raised and litigated the issue. Id. at
148, 976 P.2d at 909. The policy behind the doctrine is
"preventing inconsistent results, preventing a multiplicity of
suits, and promoting finality and judicial economy." Id. at 148-
49, 976 P.2d at 909-10.
The State submitted (under seal) the family court's
June 6, 2019 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order from
the Custody Case, and other supporting evidence. Mother's
opposition memorandum attached her declaration stating that the
OFP expires on January 31, 2029. That wasn't correct, because

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

the family court had dissolved the OFP on August 19, 2019, and
Mother did not appeal from the order. Mother did not submit
evidence controverting the State's evidence. Nor did she submit
evidence tending to show that the State negligently investigated
the allegations of sexual abuse. Instead, she argued the State
should be judicially estopped from arguing that Father did not
sexually abuse Child because it had filed a cross-claim against
Father. Neither her opposition memorandum nor her unauthorized
supplemental one made a legal argument against the application of
collateral estoppel.
Mother argues on appeal that the State "relied
completely on HRS [§ ]586-4(d) to make this [collateral estoppel]
argument, and the trial court accepted STATE's argument and
granted STATE's Motion." She did not make that argument to the
circuit court. "As a general rule, if a party does not raise an
argument at the circuit court level, that argument will be deemed
to have been waived on appeal[.]" Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka,
Inc., 114 Hawai#i 438, 500, 164 P.3d 696, 758 (2007) (brackets
omitted); HRS § 641–2 (2016) ("The appellate court . . . need not
consider a point that was not presented in the trial court in an
appropriate manner."). It is unfair to the trial court to
reverse on a ground no one even suggested might be error; it is
unfair to the opposing party, who might have met the argument not
made below; and "it does not comport with the concept of an
orderly and efficient method of administration of justice." Id.
Regardless, her argument is not correct. The State's
MSJ mentioned HRS § 586-4(d) once, when it explained what
authority the family court in the Custody Case relied on to
dissolve the OFP. The State's MSJ did not argue, and the circuit
court did not decide, whether the family court in the Custody
Case was authorized under HRS § 586-4(d) to dissolve the OFP.
And in N.P. v. A.C., we held that issue was moot because Mother
didn't appeal from the order dissolving the OFP in the Order for
Protection Case. 2024 WL 2992353, at *2.

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

Mother also argues that under HRS § 586-4(d), the
family court's findings that Father did not sexually abuse Child
are only binding in family court proceedings, and cannot be used
to collaterally estop litigation of the issue in a circuit court
civil case. She cites no authority for the proposition, and we
find none.
Mother also argues for the first time on appeal that
the family court judge who found that no sexual abuse happened
had no jurisdiction to make the finding. Lack of subject matter
jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Kellberg v. Yuen, 131
Hawai#i 513, 526, 319 P.3d 432, 445 (2014). A judgment rendered
by a court without subject matter jurisdiction is void. Id. The
existence of jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo
under the right/wrong standard. Id. Here, the family court had
exclusive original jurisdiction over the Custody Case. HRS
§ 571-11 (Supp. 2016). The family court in the Custody Case had
jurisdiction to find that Father did not sexually abuse Child.
Mother makes no argument that the clerk's taxation of
costs should be vacated. Her point is waived. Hawai#i Rules of
Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may be
deemed waived.").
The circuit court's August 1, 2022 Judgment and the
June 29, 2022 clerk's taxation of costs are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 5, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Samuel P. King, Jr., Acting Chief Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Amanda J. Weston, Associate Judge
Justine Hura,
Deputy Attorneys General, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Defendant-Appellee Associate Judge
State of Hawai#i.

6