A.K. v. D.G.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
28-JUL-2025
08:07 AM
Dkt. 116 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

A.K., Petitioner-Appellee, v.
D.G., Respondent-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2UJ201000003)

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

D.G. (Father) appeals from the April 8, 2024 Judgment
re: Permanent Custody, Timesharing Schedule, and Parent
Coordinator entered by the Family Court of the Second Circuit.1
Father challenges the February 23, 2024 Findings of Facts;
Conclusions of Laws [sic]; and Orders Following the Parties'
Evidentiary Hearings & Trial. We affirm.
Father and A.K. (Mother) are the parents of Child, born
in 2016. They lived in Colorado. During April 2019 they signed
a Stipulated Parenting Plan. The Parenting Plan was approved by,
and filed in, the District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado, on
April 17, 2019. The Colorado court also entered a Support Order
on July 11, 2019.

1
The Honorable Adrianne N. Heely presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On March 5, 2020, Mother filed a Registration and
Filing of Foreign Child-Custody Determination in the family
court. The Parenting Plan and Support Order were attached. On
June 15, 2020, Mother filed a Motion and Affidavit for Post-
Decree Relief. On August 26, 2020, Father filed Father's Motion
for Post-Decree Relief.
Trial was held on October 20, 24, 25, 27, 30, and 31,
and November 1 and 24, 2023. The Family Court entered findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and an order on February 23, 2024.
Father filed his notice of appeal on March 22, 2024. The Family
Court entered the Judgment on April 8, 2024.2
Father states five points of error: (1) "The lower
court abused its discretion when [sic] permitted Father to
proceed to trial via hybrid representation where the facts show
Father was represented at trial by attorneys from two separate
law firms"; (2) "It was legal malpractice or ineffective
assistance of counsel on the part of Father's counsel to allow
Father to serve as co-counsel at trial, because but for counsel's
decision to agree to hybrid representation, Father would have
received a fair trial"; (3) "It was plain error for the lower
court to allow Father to practice law without a license and to
serve as co-counsel where the facts show Father was represented
by two counsel from two different firms at this trial"; (4) "The
lower court abused its discretion when it issued its FOF/COL
because the FOF/COL issued in this case are unsupported by the
evidentiary record"; and (5) "The lower court abused its
discretion when [sic] substituted its own opinion and conclusions
in place of the opinions and conclusion of the majority of
subject matter experts who testified in this case."3

2
See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(2).
3
Father's statement of the points of error does not comply with
HRAP Rule 28(b)(4). The argument section of Father's opening brief does not
follow his points of error. We have attempted to connect the arguments to the
points of error; points not argued are deemed waived. HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
Argument that does not correspond to a point of error is disregarded. HRAP
(continued...)

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

(1) Father's counsel filed a Notice of Limited Scope
Representation of Father consistent with Hawai#i Family Court
Rules (HFCR) Rule 11.1(a). Father's signed consent was attached.
The Family Court approved the limited representation. Father now
contends the Family Court abused its discretion and should not
have approved his request to represent himself.
Limited representation for "appearances in court" is
allowed by HFCR Rule 11.1(a). Family court approval is not
required. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion by
allowing Father and his counsel to do what is permitted by HFCR
Rule 11.1(a).
(2) Father contends his counsel was ineffective
because they should not have allowed him to represent himself.
Father cites no authority allowing an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim in a child custody case — especially where a party
retained their own attorney — and we find none. See J.F. v.
J.F., No. CAAP–12–0000793, 2014 WL 4167013, at *2 (Haw. App.
Aug. 22, 2014), abrogated on other grounds by Waldecker v.
O'Scanlon, 137 Hawai#i 460, 375 P.3d 239 (2016). We decline to
recognize one here.
(3) Father contends the Family Court plainly erred by
allowing him to practice law without a license. It did not.
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 605-2 (2016) allows persons to
appear in court and defend their own cause. See Grube v. Trader,
142 Hawai#i 412, 428, 420 P.3d 343, 359 (2018) (noting that "the
right of self-representation exists in both criminal and civil
proceedings"). We decline to recognize plain error.
(4) Father challenges the Family Court's findings of
fact and conclusions of law. His statement of the points of
error does not include a "quotation of the finding or conclusion
urged as error or reference to appended findings and conclusions"

3
(...continued)
Rule 28(b)(4).

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

as required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(C).4 He makes the conclusory
argument that "all of these findings of fact and conclusions of
law are not supported by the lower court record." He cites to
the opening brief's Appendix, which we struck because it
contained argument, which is not permitted under HRAP Rule 28(b).
Cf. Ala Moana Boat Owners' Ass'n v. State, 50 Haw. 156, 157, 434
P.2d 516, 518 (1967) (stating that former appellate rule
"indicates the specific use to which appendices to briefs are
permitted, and precludes their use, as here, purely for purposes
of argument").
Father argues about the credibility of witnesses and
the weight of the evidence. "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).
(5) Father contends the Family Court "ignored the
opinion of experts who testified in this case, substituting in
place of those opinions the court's own opinions regarding
matters for which the court is not an expert[.]" The Family
Court's findings and conclusions show it considered the opinions
expressed by the expert witnesses — Julia Hengst (psychotherapy &
marriage therapy), Nicole Nakamura (mental health counseling),
Marcy Willard (autism and children's special needs), Dr. Lori
Love, Dr. Marvin Acklin, Dr. Kate Colon, Dr. Jeremiah Jensen, and
Dr. David Martindale, as well as Father's and Mother's testimony.
The court assessed the credibility of, and weighed the evidence
presented by, all witnesses. Its conclusions applied the
evidence to each of the HRS § 571-46(b) (2018) best-interest-of-
the-child factors. Father's point of error is not supported by
the record.

4
The appendix to the opening brief does not contain a copy of the
Family Court's February 23, 2024 findings of fact and conclusions of law.

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

The Family Court's April 8, 2024 Judgment re: Permanent
Custody, Timesharing Schedule, and Parent Coordinator is
affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 28, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Barry L. Sooalo, Presiding Judge
for Respondent-
Appellant D.G. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Mateo Caballero,
for Petitioner- /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Appellee A.K. Associate Judge

5