In re: V.R.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
25-NOV-2025
08:28 AM
Dkt. 89 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

IN THE INTEREST OF V.R.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. 22-00190)

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

Mother-Appellant (Mother) appeals from the Order
Terminating Parental Rights (TPR Order) entered on January 22,
2025, by the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court).1/
The TPR Order, among other things, terminated Mother's parental
rights to her minor child, V.R. (Child). Mother also challenges
certain conclusions of law (COLs) in the Family Court's July 31,
2025 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (FOFs/COLs).
Mother contends that: (1) the Family Court erred in
finding "clear and convincing evidence that []Mother is not
presently, nor in the reasonably foreseeable future[ will
become,] willing and able to provide the Child with a safe family
home, even with the assistance of a service plan," as stated in
COLs 22 to 25; and (2) "there was not an actual permanent plan to
be found in the best interest of the [C]hild, as erroneously
found [in] COL[s] 25 and 26."

1/
The Honorable Kyle T. Dowd presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Mother's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Mother challenges COLs 22 to 25, in which the
Family Court determined that Petitioner-Appellee Department of
Human Services (DHS) established by clear and convincing evidence
that (a) Mother "[is] not presently willing and able to provide
the Child with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a
service plan[,]" and (b) "[i]t is not reasonably foreseeable"
that Mother "will become willing and able to provide the Child
with a safe family home . . . within a reasonable period of time.
Mother contends that, because there was testimony at trial that
she had completed certain services recommended by DHS, "there
cannot logically have been a determination by clear and
convincing evidence that the statutory requirements of HRS §
587A-33(a) ha[ve] been met."
HRS § 587A-33(a) (2018), part of the Child Protective
Act (CPA), governs the termination of parental rights. It
provides, in pertinent part:

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

(1) A child's parent whose rights are subject to
termination is not presently willing and able to
provide the parent's child with a safe family
home, even with the assistance of a service
plan;
(2) It is not reasonably foreseeable that the
child's parent whose rights are subject to
termination will become willing and able to
provide the child with a safe family home, even
with the assistance of a service plan, within a
reasonable period of time, which shall not
exceed two years from the child's date of entry
into foster care[.]

Trial on the motion to terminate parental rights
concluded on January 15, 2025, approximately twenty-three months
after the Child was placed in DHS custody. "The two-year time
limit [in HRS § 587A-33(a)(2)] is the maximum a parent is allowed

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

within which to demonstrate that the parent can provide a safe
home, not the minimum." In re GH, Nos. 29187, 29188, 2009 WL
1426786, at *2 (Haw. App. May 22, 2009) (SDO). The Hawai#i
Supreme Court has defined a safe family home as "a family home in
which the child's parents or legal custodian can adequately
provide for the child's physical and psychological health and
welfare and thereby adequately protect the child from harm, be it
actual, imminent, or threatened." In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i 183,
194, 20 P.3d 616, 627 (2001).
We conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports
the Family Court's "safe family home" determinations, as
reflected in COLs 22-25. Specifically, the Family Court found in
FOFs 52-83, based on the trial testimony of DHS social worker
Damon Boren (Boren) and the totality of the relevant, reliable
and credible evidence in the record, the following:
(A) The court found that Mother's safety concerns
"included substance abuse, severe mental illness, lack of
appropriate parenting skills and knowledge, and domestic
violence[,]" and to address these concerns, "DHS service plans
required Mother to complete . . . a psychological evaluation,
individual therapy, medication management, a substance abuse
assessment, drug screening, and hands-on parenting education."
FOFs 52-54. Mother does not dispute these FOFs or otherwise
challenge the supporting evidence. See In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i
522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002) (unchallenged findings of fact
are binding on appeal).
(B) The court found that "Mother's unaddressed
substance abuse poses a high risk of harm to the Child"; "Mother
tested positive for alcohol in December 2024," during the ongoing
TPR proceedings; "Mother acknowledged the use of illicit
substances and alcohol both during and after her pregnancies with
the Child and her younger sibling"; Mother minimized her
substance abuse both during and after pregnancy; and "Mother
failed to complete her random drug monitoring program and
substance abuse counseling." FOFs 55-60. Mother does not
dispute these FOFs or otherwise challenge the supporting

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

evidence. See In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at 463.
Mother contends that at trial, Boren testified that DHS
had not been able to determine whether Mother had a substance
abuse problem. But Boren qualified this statement by reference
to Mother's concerning behaviors and inconsistent progress with
substance abuse services. The Family Court relied on the record
as a whole in determining FOFs 55-60, which included an
October 25, 2024 Supplemental Safe Family Home Report that Mother
had not attended hair follicle tests in September and October of
2024. This explains Boren's testimony at trial, without negating
the clear and convincing evidence that supports FOFs 55-60.
(C) The court found that "Mother has a history of
chronic mental illness and is currently diagnosed with
schizophrenia[,] which requires daily oral and monthly injectable
psychotropic medications to minimize psychotic symptoms"; her
schizophrenia symptoms include audio and visual hallucinations,
delusions and disorganized thoughts, including her belief that
she has only two children, despite having had five children
before moving to Hawai#i; a psychological evaluation "recommended
individual therapy with a doctoral-level therapist[,]" as well as
other treatments; and "Mother does not believe she has
schizophrenia[.]" FOFs 61-65. Mother does not dispute these
FOFs or otherwise challenge the supporting evidence. See In re
Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at 463.
Mother contends that at trial, Boren gave "uncertain
testimony" as to whether Mother had participated in
counseling/therapy services. In fact, when asked whether Mother
had participated in the recommended therapy, Boren stated, "[N]o,
not to my knowledge."
(D) The court found that "Mother's lack of parenting
skills and knowledge poses a risk of harm to the Child," as
exemplified by her inconsistency in attending visits with the
Child, her inability to engage with the Child and respond to her
needs, and other inappropriate behaviors during visits with the
Child; Mother is unable to maintain a safe environment for the
Child; "Mother has attended visits with alcohol in her possession

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

and possibly while under the influence of alcohol"; and even
though Mother completed her parenting education class, she
"failed to complete hands-on parenting" and was "unable to
demonstrate the appropriate parenting skills necessary to
maintain a safe home . . . ." FOFs 66-78. Mother does not
dispute these FOFs or otherwise challenge the supporting
evidence. See In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at 463.
Mother argues that she engaged in parenting services.
However, Boren testified at trial that Mother completed a
parenting class but not hands-on training, as reflected in FOF
76.
(E) The court found that "Mother minimizes the
[unaddressed] domestic violence dynamics in her relationship with
Father," which "pose a risk of harm to the Child"; Mother did not
complete domestic violence classes; and she "remains in a
relationship with Father[,] who has not completed court-ordered
anger management classes." FOFs 79-83. Mother does not dispute
these FOFs or otherwise challenge the supporting evidence. See
In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at 463.
Mother contends "there was also testimony" that Mother
completed a domestic violence assessment and did not need
treatment. However, Boren testified at trial that DHS
recommended that Mother complete domestic violence services, and
it was Mother who told the service provider "there was no need
for . . . domestic violence treatment." She does not dispute the
clear and convincing evidence that she did not complete the
recommended domestic violence classes.
On this record, we conclude that the Family Court did
not clearly err in determining that Mother is not presently
willing and able to provide the Child with a safe family home,
even with the assistance of a service plan, and it is not
reasonably foreseeable that she will become willing and able to
do so within a reasonable period of time.
(2) Mother next contends there was not clear and
convincing evidence that the Permanent Plan, dated July 16, 2024,
was in the best interest of the Child, as found in COLs 25 and

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

26. Mother argues that the Permanent Plan was "not a realistic
permanent plan," and could not be found to be in the best
interest of the Child, because it did not name a proposed
placement (i.e., a proposed adoptive parent).2/ Mother also notes
that after trial, DHS raised the issue of relocating the Child
out of state, leading Mother to describe the Permanent Plan as
"provisional."
HRS § 587A-32(a)(1) (2018) provides that the permanent
plan must state "whether the permanency goal for the child will
be achieved through adoption, legal guardianship, or permanent
custody[.]" (Emphasis added.) Discretion to determine an
appropriate custodian is vested in DHS upon termination of
parental rights. In re Doe, 100 Hawai#i 335, 346, 60 P.3d 285,
296 (2002). This court has consistently ruled that HRS Chapter
587A does not require a permanent plan to identify a proposed
placement. See, e.g., In re S.L., No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2025 WL
101699, at *3 (Haw. App. Jan. 15, 2025) (SDO) ("Though . . . a
pre-termination permanent plan may identify a proposed permanent
placement as part of its permanency goal, it is not required to
do so, as the final determination of permanent placement is not
required to be decided until after termination."); In re K.K.,
No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 490880, at *3 n.4 (Haw. App. Feb. 8,
2024) (SDO) ("[S]pecification of adoptive parents is not required
in a proposed permanent plan . . . ." (quoting In re S.P., No.
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2014 WL 1658601, at *1 (App. Apr. 25, 2014))).
We apply the same rule here.
Additionally, Mother does not explain how the
possibility of relocating the Child conflicts with the stated
goal of adoption or otherwise affects the Family Court's best
interest determination. Her argument is therefore without merit.
On this record, we conclude that the Family Court did
not clearly err in determining that the Permanent Plan is in the
Child's best interest.

2/
The Permanent Plan approved by the Family Court and attached to
the TPR Order states a permanency goal that the Child be placed for adoption;
it does not identify a proposed adoptive parent.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

For the reasons discussed above, the Order Terminating
Parental Rights entered on January 22, 2025, by the Family Court
of the First Circuit is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 25, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Tae Chin Kim Presiding Judge
for Mother-Appellant.

Kellie M. Kersten and /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Julio C. Herrera, Associate Judge
Deputy Attorneys General,
for Petitioner-Appellee.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

7

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

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
25-NOV-2025
08:28 AM
Dkt. 89 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN THE INTEREST OF V.R.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. 22-00190)

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

Mother-Appellant (Mother) appeals from the Order
Terminating Parental Rights (TPR Order) entered on January 22,
2025, by the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court).1/
The TPR Order, among other things, terminated Mother's parental
rights to her minor child, V.R. (Child). Mother also challenges
certain conclusions of law (COLs) in the Family Court's July 31,
2025 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (FOFs/COLs).
Mother contends that: (1) the Family Court erred in
finding "clear and convincing evidence that []Mother is not
presently, nor in the reasonably foreseeable future[ will
become,] willing and able to provide the Child with a safe family
home, even with the assistance of a service plan," as stated in
COLs 22 to 25; and (2) "there was not an actual permanent plan to
be found in the best interest of the [C]hild, as erroneously
found [in] COL[s] 25 and 26."

1/
The Honorable Kyle T. Dowd presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Mother's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Mother challenges COLs 22 to 25, in which the
Family Court determined that Petitioner-Appellee Department of
Human Services (DHS) established by clear and convincing evidence
that (a) Mother "[is] not presently willing and able to provide
the Child with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a
service plan[,]" and (b) "[i]t is not reasonably foreseeable"
that Mother "will become willing and able to provide the Child
with a safe family home . . . within a reasonable period of time.
Mother contends that, because there was testimony at trial that
she had completed certain services recommended by DHS, "there
cannot logically have been a determination by clear and
convincing evidence that the statutory requirements of HRS §
587A-33(a) ha[ve] been met."
HRS § 587A-33(a) (2018), part of the Child Protective
Act (CPA), governs the termination of parental rights. It
provides, in pertinent part:

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

(1) A child's parent whose rights are subject to
termination is not presently willing and able to
provide the parent's child with a safe family
home, even with the assistance of a service
plan;

(2) It is not reasonably foreseeable that the
child's parent whose rights are subject to
termination will become willing and able to
provide the child with a safe family home, even
with the assistance of a service plan, within a
reasonable period of time, which shall not
exceed two years from the child's date of entry
into foster care[.]

Trial on the motion to terminate parental rights
concluded on January 15, 2025, approximately twenty-three months
after the Child was placed in DHS custody. "The two-year time
limit [in HRS § 587A-33(a)(2)] is the maximum a parent is allowed

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

within which to demonstrate that the parent can provide a safe
home, not the minimum." In re GH, Nos. 29187, 29188, 2009 WL
1426786, at *2 (Haw. App. May 22, 2009) (SDO). The Hawai#i
Supreme Court has defined a safe family home as "a family home in
which the child's parents or legal custodian can adequately
provide for the child's physical and psychological health and
welfare and thereby adequately protect the child from harm, be it
actual, imminent, or threatened." In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i 183,
194, 20 P.3d 616, 627 (2001).
We conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports
the Family Court's "safe family home" determinations, as
reflected in COLs 22-25. Specifically, the Family Court found in
FOFs 52-83, based on the trial testimony of DHS social worker
Damon Boren (Boren) and the totality of the relevant, reliable
and credible evidence in the record, the following:
(A) The court found that Mother's safety concerns
"included substance abuse, severe mental illness, lack of
appropriate parenting skills and knowledge, and domestic
violence[,]" and to address these concerns, "DHS service plans
required Mother to complete . . . a psychological evaluation,
individual therapy, medication management, a substance abuse
assessment, drug screening, and hands-on parenting education."
FOFs 52-54. Mother does not dispute these FOFs or otherwise
challenge the supporting evidence. See In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i
522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002) (unchallenged findings of fact
are binding on appeal).
(B) The court found that "Mother's unaddressed
substance abuse poses a high risk of harm to the Child"; "Mother
tested positive for alcohol in December 2024," during the ongoing
TPR proceedings; "Mother acknowledged the use of illicit
substances and alcohol both during and after her pregnancies with
the Child and her younger sibling"; Mother minimized her
substance abuse both during and after pregnancy; and "Mother
failed to complete her random drug monitoring program and
substance abuse counseling." FOFs 55-60. Mother does not
dispute these FOFs or otherwise challenge the supporting

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

evidence. See In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at 463.
Mother contends that at trial, Boren testified that DHS
had not been able to determine whether Mother had a substance
abuse problem. But Boren qualified this statement by reference
to Mother's concerning behaviors and inconsistent progress with
substance abuse services. The Family Court relied on the record
as a whole in determining FOFs 55-60, which included an
October 25, 2024 Supplemental Safe Family Home Report that Mother
had not attended hair follicle tests in September and October of
2024. This explains Boren's testimony at trial, without negating
the clear and convincing evidence that supports FOFs 55-60.
(C) The court found that "Mother has a history of
chronic mental illness and is currently diagnosed with
schizophrenia[,] which requires daily oral and monthly injectable
psychotropic medications to minimize psychotic symptoms"; her
schizophrenia symptoms include audio and visual hallucinations,
delusions and disorganized thoughts, including her belief that
she has only two children, despite having had five children
before moving to Hawai#i; a psychological evaluation "recommended
individual therapy with a doctoral-level therapist[,]" as well as
other treatments; and "Mother does not believe she has
schizophrenia[.]" FOFs 61-65. Mother does not dispute these
FOFs or otherwise challenge the supporting evidence. See In re
Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at 463.
Mother contends that at trial, Boren gave "uncertain
testimony" as to whether Mother had participated in
counseling/therapy services. In fact, when asked whether Mother
had participated in the recommended therapy, Boren stated, "[N]o,
not to my knowledge."
(D) The court found that "Mother's lack of parenting
skills and knowledge poses a risk of harm to the Child," as
exemplified by her inconsistency in attending visits with the
Child, her inability to engage with the Child and respond to her
needs, and other inappropriate behaviors during visits with the
Child; Mother is unable to maintain a safe environment for the
Child; "Mother has attended visits with alcohol in her possession

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

and possibly while under the influence of alcohol"; and even
though Mother completed her parenting education class, she
"failed to complete hands-on parenting" and was "unable to
demonstrate the appropriate parenting skills necessary to
maintain a safe home . . . ." FOFs 66-78. Mother does not
dispute these FOFs or otherwise challenge the supporting
evidence. See In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at 463.
Mother argues that she engaged in parenting services.
However, Boren testified at trial that Mother completed a
parenting class but not hands-on training, as reflected in FOF
76.
(E) The court found that "Mother minimizes the
[unaddressed] domestic violence dynamics in her relationship with
Father," which "pose a risk of harm to the Child"; Mother did not
complete domestic violence classes; and she "remains in a
relationship with Father[,] who has not completed court-ordered
anger management classes." FOFs 79-83. Mother does not dispute
these FOFs or otherwise challenge the supporting evidence. See
In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at 463.
Mother contends "there was also testimony" that Mother
completed a domestic violence assessment and did not need
treatment. However, Boren testified at trial that DHS
recommended that Mother complete domestic violence services, and
it was Mother who told the service provider "there was no need
for . . . domestic violence treatment." She does not dispute the
clear and convincing evidence that she did not complete the
recommended domestic violence classes.
On this record, we conclude that the Family Court did
not clearly err in determining that Mother is not presently
willing and able to provide the Child with a safe family home,
even with the assistance of a service plan, and it is not
reasonably foreseeable that she will become willing and able to
do so within a reasonable period of time.
(2) Mother next contends there was not clear and
convincing evidence that the Permanent Plan, dated July 16, 2024,
was in the best interest of the Child, as found in COLs 25 and

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

26. Mother argues that the Permanent Plan was "not a realistic
permanent plan," and could not be found to be in the best
interest of the Child, because it did not name a proposed
placement (i.e., a proposed adoptive parent).2/ Mother also notes
that after trial, DHS raised the issue of relocating the Child
out of state, leading Mother to describe the Permanent Plan as
"provisional."
HRS § 587A-32(a)(1) (2018) provides that the permanent
plan must state "whether the permanency goal for the child will
be achieved through adoption, legal guardianship, or permanent
custody[.]" (Emphasis added.) Discretion to determine an
appropriate custodian is vested in DHS upon termination of
parental rights. In re Doe, 100 Hawai#i 335, 346, 60 P.3d 285,
296 (2002). This court has consistently ruled that HRS Chapter
587A does not require a permanent plan to identify a proposed
placement. See, e.g., In re S.L., No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2025 WL
101699, at *3 (Haw. App. Jan. 15, 2025) (SDO) ("Though . . . a
pre-termination permanent plan may identify a proposed permanent
placement as part of its permanency goal, it is not required to
do so, as the final determination of permanent placement is not
required to be decided until after termination."); In re K.K.,
No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 490880, at *3 n.4 (Haw. App. Feb. 8,
2024) (SDO) ("[S]pecification of adoptive parents is not required
in a proposed permanent plan . . . ." (quoting In re S.P., No.
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2014 WL 1658601, at *1 (App. Apr. 25, 2014))).
We apply the same rule here.
Additionally, Mother does not explain how the
possibility of relocating the Child conflicts with the stated
goal of adoption or otherwise affects the Family Court's best
interest determination. Her argument is therefore without merit.
On this record, we conclude that the Family Court did
not clearly err in determining that the Permanent Plan is in the
Child's best interest.

2/
The Permanent Plan approved by the Family Court and attached to
the TPR Order states a permanency goal that the Child be placed for adoption;
it does not identify a proposed adoptive parent.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

For the reasons discussed above, the Order Terminating
Parental Rights entered on January 22, 2025, by the Family Court
of the First Circuit is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 25, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Tae Chin Kim Presiding Judge
for Mother-Appellant.

Kellie M. Kersten and /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Julio C. Herrera, Associate Judge
Deputy Attorneys General,
for Petitioner-Appellee.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

7