In re: F.G.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
09-APR-2025
08:07 AM
Dkt. 47 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

IN THE INTEREST OF F.G.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. 23-00093)

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

Mother-Appellant (Mother) appeals from the October 16,

2024 Orders Concerning Child Protective Act [(CPA)] (Order

Terminating Jurisdiction) entered by the Family Court of the

First Circuit (Family Court).1 In the Order Terminating

Jurisdiction, the Family Court (a) ruled that Father-Appellee
(Father) was able to provide the subject child (born in early

2018), F.G. (FG or Child), with a safe family home, (b) revoked

Petitioner-Appellee Department of Human Services's (DHS's)

foster custody of FG, terminated the Family Court's jurisdiction

over the CPA proceeding, and (c) denied Mother's motion

requesting FG be placed with Mother under family supervision.

Mother also challenges Findings of Fact (FOFs) 91, 95, 97, 110,

1
The Honorable Jessi L.K. Hall presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

122, 123, 125, 126, and 131 set forth in the Family Court's

December 4, 2024 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

In her points of error on appeal (and argument), Mother

contends that the Family Court erred and abused its discretion in

the Order Terminating Jurisdiction because (a) DHS failed to

provide a reasonable opportunity for Mother to reunite with

Child, and (b) the Family Court failed to grant Mother's request

that FG be returned to her custody under family supervision.

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 Mother's

points of error as follows:

On November 6, 2023, Mother was escorted by police off

the premises of the Child and Family Domestic Violence Shelter

because she was in possession of alcohol, heavily intoxicated,

and non-compliant with police. Mother was staying at the shelter

with two of her minor children, FG and H.G. (Children), who was

almost two years old (HG). Shelter staff repeatedly observed

Mother in possession of alcohol, neglecting the children,

remaining in her bedroom while the children played or wandered

outside. Shelter staff informed DHS that HG was seen in soiled

diapers, dirty, and barefoot most of the time, with the five-

year-old FG attempting to care for the younger sibling.

On November 13, 2023, DHS filed a petition for

temporary foster custody, alleging "Mother suffers from a mental

illness and that affects her ability to supervise, protect, or

care for Children." The Children were previously placed in

protective custody with DHS in November 2022 and May 2023.

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

During a DHS safety assessment of Mother on November 7, 2023,

Mother reported she had not been taking her medications, and

admitted regular alcohol consumption. In its Safe Family Home

Report dated November 13, 2023, DHS determined the children

needed temporary foster custody for their protection.

The Family Court heard the petition for temporary

foster custody on November 15, 2023. Temporary foster custody of

HG was revoked after the Family Court found that HG's father was

willing and able to provide a safe family home without the
assistance of a service plan. After previously refusing to

disclose FG's father, at the November 15, 2023 hearing, Mother

identified Father as FG's father; Mother contested the petition

and requested a trial. The Family Court determined that

continued emergency temporary foster custody for FG was necessary

to protect FG from imminent harm, provided Mother with

court-appointed counsel, appointed Terrance Tom as guardian ad

litem (GAL) for FG, and set a contested hearing.

Thereafter, DHS searched for and contacted Father in

Iowa, who was not aware that he was FG's alleged father. An Iowa

agency completed a courtesy assessment of Father's home, and

Father agreed to genetic testing.

A further hearing was held on December 11, 2023.

Father appeared by Zoom, but had not yet been served or confirmed

as a parent. After taking testimony, the Family Court found that

Child had been harmed or threatened harm by Mother's acts or

omissions. The Family Court, inter alia, took jurisdiction,

awarded DHS foster custody over FG, and approved and ordered the

November 13, 2024 service plan.

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

On January 8, 2024, the State of Hawai#i Child Support

Enforcement Agency (CSEA) initiated a separate family court

proceeding with the filing of a Petition for Parentage, which

sought to establish Father as FG's natural father (the Paternity

Case). At a February 16, 2024 hearing in the Paternity Case,

genetic testing was requested by Father and ordered by the Family

Court. Genetic test results were filed by CSEA on April 3, 2024,

indicating a 99.99% probability that Father was FG's father. A

Judgment of Paternity adjudicating Father as FG's natural father
was entered on April 18, 2024. On June 21, 2024, Father filed a

post-judgment motion in the Paternity Case, requesting that he be

awarded the legal and physical custody of FG based on him being a

non-offending parent in the CPA case, as well as his ability to

provide FG with a safe family home.

In the CPA case, on June 24, 2024, Mother filed a

motion for immediate review seeking custody of FG with family

supervision. At a hearing in the CPA case on that date, Father

submitted to the court's jurisdiction and notified the court that

he was seeking custody. DHS informed the court that it was

comfortable placing FG with Father and terminating the court's
jurisdiction. After further input from Mother and the GAL, the

Family Court allowed a two-week visit with Father, but denied

DHS's request for immediate placement with Father and case

closure. At a July 2024 hearing, Mother's motion for custody

with family supervision was continued.

At an October 14, 2024 hearing, the Family Court called

both the CPA case and the Paternity Case. A September 23, 2024

DHS Safe Family Home Report (SFH Report) was admitted into

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

evidence. The SFH Report stated that although Mother "has made

significant effort towards addressing the concerns that

necessitated removal," she "has not resolved the safety issues in

the home and is unable to meet the conditions for return to

implement an in-home safety plan." The SFH Report also stated

Mother was "unable to demonstrate the ability to provide a safe

family home based on her inability to address the safety factors

that necessitated the removal."

The SFH Report further stated that (1) Father was a
non-offending parent; (2) the State of Iowa completed a physical

assessment of the home and background checks of adult household

members, and reported no concerns; and (3) Father was willing and

able to provide a safe family home without the assistance of a

service plan. DHS recommended FG be placed in Father's sole

physical custody. Mother argued against placement with Father.

After hearing from all parties, including the GAL, the Family

Court denied Mother's motion for immediate review, found that

Father was a non-offending parent who could provide FG with a

safe family home without the necessity of a service plan,

terminated foster custody over FG, and then terminated

jurisdiction in the CPA case.

In the Paternity Case, at the October 14, 2024 hearing,

Father was granted temporary physical and legal custody of FG,

including permission to transport FG to Father's home in Iowa.

An evidentiary hearing was set for November 25, 2024, with Mother

permitted daily FaceTime contact with FG in the interim. The

hearing was held on November 25, 2024, and Father was awarded

sole legal and physical custody. A status conference was held on

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

December 4, 2024, to determine and discuss visitation with

Mother. Orders were entered thereafter in the Paternity Case on

January 23, 2025, and January 28, 2025.

Mother timely filed her Notice of Appeal in this CPA

case on October 28, 2024. No appeal was taken in the Paternity

Case.

The purpose of the CPA, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)

Chapter 587A, is "to provide children with prompt and ample

protection from the harms detailed herein, with an opportunity
for timely reconciliation with their families if the families can

provide safe family homes[.]" HRS § 587A-2 (2018). HRS § 587A-7

(2018) lists fourteen factors which a court must consider in

determining whether a parent can provide a safe family home. HRS

§ 587A-30(b) (2018) provides in pertinent part:
(b) At each periodic review hearing, the court shall
review the status of the case to determine whether the child
is receiving appropriate services and care, whether the case
plan is being properly implemented, and whether the
department's or authorized agency's activities are directed
toward a permanent placement for the child. At the hearing,
the court shall:
(1) Determine whether the child is safe and enter
orders:
(A) That the child be placed in foster custody
if the court finds that the child's
remaining in the family home is contrary
to the welfare of the child and the
child's parents are not willing and able
to provide a safe family home for the
child, even with the assistance of a
service plan;

(B) That the child be placed in family
supervision if the court finds that the
child's parents are willing and able to
provide the child with a safe family home
with the assistance of a service plan; or

(C) To terminate jurisdiction if the court
finds that the child's parents are willing
and able to provide the child with a safe
family home without the assistance of a
service plan.

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

(Emphasis added).

Many of Mother's challenges to the Family Court's FOFs

relate to Father's ability to provide a safe family home for FG

without the assistance of a service plan. We conclude that these

findings are based on substantial evidence in the record before

the Family Court, and Mother's arguments in effect challenge the

Family Court's weighing of that evidence, contending that more

evidence should have been required. However, Mother offers no

evidence of safety concerns as to Father and Mother does not
challenge the many HRS § 587A-7 safe family home factors that the

Family Court fully considered before ultimately determining that

Father was willing and able to provide FG with a safe family home

without the assistance of a service plan. Although Mother had

made significant progress in addressing the issues that led to

DHS's emergency foster custody of FG, Mother did not argue or

provide evidence supporting that she was willing and able to

provide FG with a safe family home without the assistance of a

service plan.

Mother did not argue in the Family Court proceedings

that she was not given a reasonable opportunity to participate in

services to reunify, or that the services provided by DHS were

insufficient. Therefore, we will not consider those issues for

the first time on appeal. In any case, unchallenged FOFs

supported the Family Court's findings in this regard. Mother's

due process arguments are inconsistent with her failure to, for

example, make a timely request to cross-examine a report writer

or object to a report being admitted into evidence. Mother's due

process rights were also protected by the Family Court's taking

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

of evidence prior to ruling on Mother's motion for immediate

review, and by the hearing on the issue of Child's custody held

in the Paternity Case.

We conclude that, based on its well-supported finding

that Father was willing and able to provide FG with a safe family

home without the assistance of a service plan, the Family Court

properly terminated the CPA case in accordance with HRS

§ 587A-30(b)(1)(C).

For these reasons, the Family Court's October 16, 2024
Order Terminating Jurisdiction is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 9, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Herbert Y. Hamada,
for Mother-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Francis T. O'Brien,
for Father-Appellee. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge
Kurt J. Shimamoto,
Julio C. Herrera,
Erin K.S. Torres,
Regina Anne M. Shimada,
Deputy Attorneys General,
Department of the Attorney General,
for Petitioner-Appellee,
Department of Human Services.

8