D.S. v. W.G.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-FEB-2026
08:10 AM
Dkt. 59 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

D.S., Petitioner-Appellant, v.
W.G., Respondent-Appellee

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Petitioner-Appellant DS (DS) appeals from the Family

Court of the Third Circuit's (Family Court)1 October 30, 2023

order denying DS's Petition for an Order for Protection on Behalf

of Family or Household Members [(Petition for Protection)] (Order

Denying Petition) entered in favor of Respondent-Appellee WG

(WG).

DS raises four points of error, contending that the

Family Court erred in denying the Petition for Protection

because: (1) the Family Court failed to construe the pro se

Petition for Protection liberally to facilitate access to

justice; (2) the Petition for Protection complies with the

factual and statutory requirements of Hawaii Revised Statutes

(HRS) chapter 586; (3) res judicata was not applicable because

1
The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the allegations stated in the Petition for Protection clearly

reference acts of harassment, stalking, and coercive control that

occurred in 2023; and (4) no good cause was shown to justify

denying the Petition for Protection.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve DS's

points of error as follows:

(1) DS argues that the Family Court failed to construe

her pro se petition liberally. However, DS does not point to

anything in the record to support this particular contention.

While the Family Court may have misapprehended, in part, DS's

rationale for reciting allegations of past abuse, which were

addressed in a prior proceeding, it appears that the Family Court

recognized DS's arguments that there were abusive incidents in

2023, as the court concluded that "[a]llegations do not establish

a basis for relief under H.R.S. Chapter 586 and issues were

litigated in 3DA221000050" (emphasis added). Accordingly, we

conclude that the first point of error is without merit.

(2-4) DS argues that the Petition for Protection

satisfied the factual and legal requirements of HRS chapter 586

(2018; Supp. 2021). HRS § 586-4 (2018) states, in pertinent

part:
§ 586-4 Temporary restraining order. (a) Upon
petition to a family court judge, an ex parte temporary
restraining order may be granted without notice to restrain
either or both parties from contacting, threatening, or
physically abusing each other, notwithstanding that a
complaint for annulment, divorce, or separation has not been
filed[.]

. . . .

(c) The family court judge may issue the ex parte
temporary restraining order orally, if the person being

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

restrained is present in court. The order shall state that
there is probable cause to believe that a past act or acts
of abuse have occurred, or that threats of abuse make it
probable that acts of abuse may be imminent. The order
further shall state that the temporary restraining order is
necessary for the purposes of: preventing acts of abuse or
preventing a recurrence of actual domestic abuse and
ensuring a period of separation of the parties involved.
The order shall also describe in reasonable detail the act
or acts sought to be restrained. Where necessary, the order
may require either or both of the parties involved to leave
the premises during the period of the order; may also
restrain the party or parties to whom it is directed from
contacting, threatening, or physically abusing the
applicant's family or household members; and may enjoin or
restrain both parties from taking, concealing, removing,
threatening, physically abusing, or otherwise disposing of
any animal identified to the court as belonging to a
household, until further order of the court. The order
shall not only be binding upon the parties to the action,
but also upon their officers, agents, servants, employees,
attorneys, or any other persons in active concert or
participation with them. . . .

Relevant definitions related to abuse under HRS chapter

586 include the following:
§ 586-1 Definitions. As used in this chapter:

"Coercive control" means a pattern of threatening,
humiliating, or intimidating actions, which may include
assaults, or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or
frighten an individual. "Coercive control" includes a
pattern of behavior that seeks to take away the individual's
liberty or freedom and strip away the individual's sense of
self, including bodily integrity and human rights, whereby
the "coercive control" is designed to make an individual
dependent by isolating them from support, exploiting them,
depriving them of independence, and regulating their
everyday behavior including:

(1) Isolating the individual from friends and
family;

(2) Controlling how much money is accessible to the
individual and how it is spent;

(3) Monitoring the individual's activities,
communications, and movements;

(4) Name-calling, degradation, and demeaning the
individual frequently;

(5) Threatening to harm or kill the individual or a
child or relative of the individual;

(6) Threatening to publish information or make
reports to the police or the authorities;

(7) Damaging property or household goods; and

(8) Forcing the individual to take part in criminal
activity or child abuse.

. . . .

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

"Domestic abuse" means:

(1) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the
threat of imminent physical harm, bodily injury,
or assault, extreme psychological abuse,
coercive control, or malicious property damage
between family or household members; or

(2) Any act which would constitute an offense under
section 709-906, or under part V or VI of
chapter 707 committed against a minor family or
household member by an adult family or household
member.

"Extreme psychological abuse" means an intentional or
knowing course of conduct directed at an individual that
seriously alarms or disturbs consistently or continually
bothers the individual, and that serves no legitimate
purpose; provided that such course of conduct would cause a
reasonable person to suffer extreme emotional distress.

Here, on the court-approved form for a "Petition for an

Order for Protection on Behalf of Family or Household Members,"

DS stated that an act of abuse occurred on October 26, 2023; she

indicated "extreme psychological abuse" (only) as the form of

abuse, but said "please see attached statement."

In the attached statement, there is no alleged abuse

that occurred on October 26, 2023. However, in addition to

reciting past allegations that were the subject of a prior

proceeding, DS alleged that on September 16, 2023, "[WG's] friend

approached [Daughter] directly on the street with messages from

her father making her so terrified, she is too scared to go out

on the public street[!]" The contents of the alleged messages

are not stated. DS also alleged that WG sent family friend Saci

a text message on September 1, 2023, in which WG allegedly became

angry with Saci, and asked if she had seen DS and Daughter and

expressed that he (WG) wanted to find them. Additionally, DS

alleged that on September 5, 2023, Hilo police contacted her and

said WG had made out a welfare check to her; that same day, WG

allegedly called a café and another store allegedly looking for

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

DS and Daughter. Aside from the above, and an allegation that

the parties's daughter witnessed a sexual assault by WG (which

was the subject of prior proceedings in 3DA221000050), 2 DS

alleges no specific act or conduct by WG, and instead details the

extent of Daughter's alleged fear, diagnoses, anxiety, and

concomitant medical conditions.

To the extent that the Family Court denied relief based

on allegations that the parties' daughter witnessed a sexual

assault by WG, the Family Court did not err in concluding that

further litigation of those issues was foreclosed because they

were previously litigated in 3DA221000050. Relitigation of those

issues is barred by principles of res judicata because they were

raised and ruled on in 3DA221000050. See, e.g., Smallwood v.

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 118 Hawai i 139, 146-47, 185 P.3d 887,

894-95 (App. 2008) (explaining res judicata).

To the extent that the Family Court denied relief based

on "new" allegations – those grounded in alleged acts or conduct

occurring in 2023 – we conclude that the Family Court did not

abuse its discretion in denying the Petition for Protection.

Even assuming the truth of the factual allegations stated in the

Petition for Protection, we cannot conclude that the Family Court

erred or abused its discretion in concluding that WG's alleged

inquiries concerning his ex-wife and daughter, and/or the

incident of messaging through a third party, constituted extreme

2
This court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in
3DA221000050 wherein, after an evidentiary hearing, a family court dissolved a
temporary restraining order and denied a petition for order of protection,
which was based on allegations that the parties' daughter witnessed a sexual
assault of another child by WG. The family court's ruling in 3DA221000050 was
affirmed by this court in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; DS's petition for writ of
certiorari was rejected.

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

psychological abuse to the daughter, or an alternative form of

abuse, under HRS chapter 586.

Accordingly, the Family Court's October 30, 2023 Order

Denying Petition is affirmed. 3

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, February 17, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Jamae K.K. Kawauchi
(Jamae K.K. Kawauchi AAL LLC), /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
for Petitioner-Appellant. Associate Judge

Jo Kim, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Respondent-Appellee. Associate Judge

3
We note that DS filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order
Denying Petition, which was also denied. Although that motion is mentioned in
briefing, DS raises no point of error and makes no discernible argument that
the Family Court abused its discretion in denying the motion for
reconsideration.

6