In re: SO and E Children ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
14-FEB-2023
09:47 AM
Dkt. 88 MO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
IN THE INTEREST OF SO AND E CHILDREN
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. 20-00053)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(By: Ginoza, C.J., and Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Appellant/Cross-Appellee Father (Father) and
Appellee/Cross-Appellant Mother (Mother) (together, Parents)
appeal from the Order Terminating Parental Rights (TPR Order)1/
and Letters of Permanent Custody, entered on March 29, 2022, in
the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court),2/
terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to SO, JE, RE,
and DE (the Children).3/ On May 5, 2022, the Family Court entered
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding the TPR Order.
We construe Mother and Father's respective opening
briefs as asserting the following contentions: (1)
Appellee/Cross-Appellee Department of Human Services (DHS) failed
to make reasonable efforts to reunify Mother and Father with the
Children, and thus the Family Court erred in finding there was
1/
On April 8, 2022, the Family Court entered an amended TPR Order
and Amended Letters of Permanent Custody reflecting non-substantive clerical
changes.
2/
The Honorable Andrew T. Park presided.
3/
Mother is the natural and legal mother of the Children. Father is
the legal father of JE and RE and the adjudicated father of DE. SO's legal
father did not participate in the underlying proceeding or on appeal.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
clear and convincing evidence that Mother and Father were not
willing and able to provide a safe family home, even with the
assistance of a service plan, now or within a reasonable period
of time, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 587A-
33(a)(1) and (2) (2018)4/; and (2) the Permanent Plan dated
October 11, 2021 was not in the Children's best interests,
pursuant to HRS § 587A-33(a)(3) (2018).5/
4/
HRS § 587A-33 provides, in relevant part:
(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;
(3) The proposed permanent plan is in the best
interests of the child. In reaching this
determination, the court shall:
(A) Presume that it is in the best interests
of the child to be promptly and
permanently placed with responsible and
competent substitute parents and family in
a safe and secure home; and
(B) Give greater weight to the presumption
that the permanent plan is in the child's
best interest, the younger the child is
upon the child's date of entry into foster
care; and
(4) The child consents to the permanent plan if the
child is at least fourteen years old, unless the
court consults with the child in camera and
finds that it is in the best interest of the
child to proceed without the child's consent.
5/
In their respective opening briefs, Mother and Father identify (1)
the TPR Order, (2) the Letters of Permanent Custody, and (3) their objections
to findings of fact (FOFs) 71, 110 (identified by Mother), 111 (identified by
Father), 137, 155-158, 159 (identified by Mother), 160 (identified by Father),
177-179, and 188-190, and conclusions of law ( COLs) 6, 7, and 9, as their
"points of error," but fail to clearly articulate specific points of error,
identify where the error occurred, and identify how each point was preserved
for appeal, with appropriate record citations. See Rules Expediting Child
Protective Appeals (RECPA) Rule 11(a)(3)(A)-(C). Additionally, the argument
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
For the reasons discussed below, we vacate the TPR
Order and the Letters of Permanent Custody, and remand to the
Family Court for further proceedings.
I. Background
In April 2020, the police transferred custody of the
Children to DHS due to safety issues concerning Mother and
Father's substance abuse and domestic violence. All of the
Children entered into foster care on June 2, 2020. At that time,
the Children were the following ages: SO, twelve years; JE,
eleven years; RE, 23 months; and DE, ten months.
In June 2020, DHS placed SO and JE into a foster home
with a resource caregiver (RCG). In June 2021, DHS placed RE and
DE in the same home. All four Children resided with RCG from
June 2021 until DHS removed SO in February 2022. During this
time, a single guardian ad litem, Emily M. Hills (GAL Hills),
represented the Children. Beginning March 1, 2022, Daniel E.
Pollard (GAL Pollard) served as guardian ad litem for RE and DE.
In April 2020, the Family Court appointed separate
counsel for Mother and Father. In June 2020, the court ordered
the DHS service plan outlining tasks for Mother and Father to
complete to be reunified with the Children, including: (1)
substance abuse assessment and follow through with recommended
treatment, (2) random drug screening, (3) domestic violence
intervention, (4) parenting education, and (5) a psychological
evaluation.
DHS assigned social workers to the case whose work
included assisting Mother and Father complete the tasks in the
service plan. Michel Tovey (Tovey) served as the social worker
on the case from May 2020 to February 2021, followed by Maili
Taele (Taele). DHS, via its social workers, temporarily provided
sections of the opening briefs do not specifically address each point of
error, but rather make the same two overarching arguments. See id. Rule
11(a)(4). Although the opening briefs fail to comply in material respects
with the RECPA, we have "consistently adhered to the policy of affording
litigants the opportunity 'to have their cases heard on the merits, where
possible.'" Morgan v. Planning Dep't Cty. of Kauai, 104 Hawai #i 173, 180, 86
P.3d 982, 989 (2004) (quoting O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai #i 383,
386, 885 P.2d 361, 364 (1994)). We thus address Parents' arguments and the
contested FOFs and COLs to the extent discernible.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Mother and Father with a cell phone and gave them bus passes.
DHS communicated with Mother and Father via in-person meetings,
telephone calls, emails, and text messaging.
On November 16, 2021, after minimal progress on the
service plan, DHS filed a motion to terminate parental rights
(TPR Motion). Attached to the TPR Motion was a Safe Family Home
Report and Permanent Plan, both dated October 11, 2021. The
Permanent Plan, among other things, described the Children's
current and permanent placement as being with RCG. DHS described
"age-appropriate permanent plan discussions" with SO and JE, in
which they both stated that they wished to remain in RCG's home
and felt safe and stable there. DHS provided the following
assessment and recommendation:
DHS believes that permanent custody of [SO], [JE], [RE] and
[DE] is in their [sic] best interest of the children. RCG
is non-relative resource caregiver that has formed close
bonds with the children and provided them with a safe and
stable home. [SO] and [JE] have been in RCG's care since
06/15/2020. [RE] and [DE] was [sic] placed in RCG's home
since 06/03/2021. RCG is willing to provide a Forever home
for the four children despite the difficulties of raising
four children as a single parent.
DHS believes that permanent custody with the goal of
adoption of the [Children] be granted.
On October 12, 2021, SO consented to the Permanent Plan.
On December 14, 2021, GAL Hills filed a report to the
Family Court that stated in part, "there is an issue with the
current permanent plan for the children and the stability of the
children's current placement." GAL Hills expressed concerns
about the Children's placement with RCG, noting tensions between
RCG and SO and JE, RCG's ambivalence about adopting the Children,
and RCG's inability to provide the Children with additional
support due to the demands of her job and so many children. GAL
Hills stated that as a result of her concerns, she had asked DHS
to explore other placement options for some of the Children. GAL
Hills also reported her concern that the best interests of the
older Children, SO and JE, were diverging from those of the
younger Children, RE and DE.
Ultimately, GAL Hills recommended that the Family Court
(1) continue foster custody, (2) order DHS to explore non-
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
relative placement options for the Children, and (3) continue the
TPR Motion to give DHS time to explore alternative placement
options.
On December 21, 2021, DHS submitted a Supplemental Safe
Family Home Report to the Court, raising concerns similar to GAL
Hills's, but concluding that, with financial assistance, RCG
could provide the Children with a permanent home.
At a December 21, 2021 hearing, the Family Court spoke
with SO and JE regarding placement issues, and later acknowledged
that "there may be a need to split the kids up" and "some kids
are going to have to change placement . . . ." To address
potential conflicts of interest between the Children, the Family
Court ordered that GAL Pollard be appointed to represent RE and
DE, and scheduled trial on the TPR Motion.
At trial, the Family Court heard testimony from Taele,
Tovey, Mother, and Father regarding Mother's and Father's
progress on the service plan and DHS's efforts to assist them.
Taele testified, among other things, that "[a]t the time that we
did the permanent plan the goal was to have them be adopted by
[RCG]."
At the end of trial, the Family Court found that (1)
Mother and Father were unable to provide a safe family home for
the Children, (2) it was not reasonably foreseeable that they
would become willing and able to provide the Children with a safe
family home within a reasonable period of time, and (3) the
Permanent Plan was in the best interests of the Children.
II. Standards of Review
"Generally, the family court possesses wide discretion
in making its decisions and those decisions will not be set aside
unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion." In re Doe, 95
Hawai#i 183, 189, 20 P.3d 616, 622 (2001) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting In re Doe, 84 Hawai#i 41, 46, 928 P.2d
883, 888 (1996)).
We review Parents' challenges to the Family Court's
FOFs for clear error. Doe, 95 Hawai#i at 190, 20 P.3d at 623.
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
A FOF "is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks
substantial evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite
substantial evidence in support of the finding, the
appellate court is nonetheless left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made." "'Substantial
evidence' is credible evidence which is of sufficient
quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable
caution to support a conclusion."
Id. (citations and ellipsis omitted).
We likewise review conclusions of law that present
mixed questions of fact and law for clear error. See In re JM,
150 Hawai#i 125, 137, 497 P.3d 140, 152 (App. 2021).
Accordingly:
The family court's determinations . . . with respect to (1)
whether a child's parent is willing and able to provide a
safe family home for the child and (2) whether it is
reasonably foreseeable that a child's parent will become
willing and able to provide a safe family home within a
reasonable period of time present mixed questions of law and
fact; . . . they are reviewed on appeal under the clearly
erroneous standard. Likewise, the family court's
determination of what is or is not in a child's best
interests is reviewed on appeal for clear error.
Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Doe, 95 Hawai#i at 190, 20 P.3d
at 623).
III. Discussion
A. Whether DHS Made Reasonable Efforts Toward
Reunification
Mother and Father appear to contend that DHS failed to
make reasonable efforts to reunify them with the Children, and
thus the Family Court erred in finding there was clear and
convincing evidence that Parents were not willing and able to
provide a safe family home, even with the assistance of a service
plan, now or within a reasonable period of time. In support of
this contention: (1) Mother and Father assert that DHS failed to
assist them with obtaining a cell phone; (2) Mother asserts that
DHS failed to assist her in obtaining counseling and housing, and
failed to provide visits with the Children at her residence once
she obtained housing; (3) Father asserts that DHS failed to
monitor Mother's and Father's progress in services through
monthly home visits; (4) Mother and Father assert that DHS failed
to make reasonable efforts to obtain Mother's consent to release
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
records from Malama Recovery Services; and (5) Mother and Father
assert that DHS failed to continue trial in light of recent
substance abuse assessments and active efforts to get into
residential treatment programs. Mother's and Father's objections
to FOFs 71, 110, 111, 137, 155-59, and 177-79, and COLS 6 and 7,
appear to relate to their argument.
We address Mother's and Father's assertions, followed
by the related FOFs and COLs.
(1) Mother and Father cite no authority, and we find
none, requiring DHS to assist them in obtaining a cell phone.
Nonetheless, the record establishes that DHS provided Mother and
Father with a prepaid phone for a time. Moreover, it appears
that Mother and Father had access to a phone and/or computer at
times during the pendency of the case. Taele and Tovey
communicated with Mother and Father via telephone, text message,
and email. Mother called and searched the Internet for shelters
to locate her and Father's current residence and obtain a
substance abuse assessment on her own. During trial, Mother
called counsel to report that she and Father were running late.
Additionally, the record reflects that Mother and
Father's failure to complete services was due to inconsistent
participation, not the lack of a phone. GAL Hills noted that
Mother and Father had participated in certain services
notwithstanding the lack of a phone. Father testified to not
engaging in services at times due to being rebellious. Mother
testified to not engaging in services because she did not want to
do what DHS told her to do, she was irresponsible, she felt
embarrassed to borrow a phone or to call Taele, and at times,
gave up.
(2) Mother does not cite to where in the record she
requested and DHS failed to assist her in obtaining counseling or
housing, or in holding visits at her residence. See RECPA Rule
11(a)(3)(B); HRAP Rule 28(b)(4). In any event, the record
reflects that DHS repeatedly referred Mother and Father to
various counseling and therapy services, and attempted to assist
Mother and Father locate housing. The record further reflects
that DHS organized visitation with the Children throughout the
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
proceeding. Mother cites no authority that required DHS to
change the location of visitation at Mother's request after she
obtained housing or that it was unreasonable for DHS not to do so
in these circumstances.
(3) Father does not cite, and the record does not
contain, substantial evidence showing that monthly home visits
were required to monitor Mother's and Father's progress in
services. Father cites to portions of the record that list
monthly home visits as one way DHS could monitor Mother and
Father's progress. But other alternatives included "telephone
contact, etc."
At trial, Taele testified that she focused on email and
text message communication with Mother and Father to avoid in-
person conflicts, and the record also reflects that DHS engaged
in in-person and telephone contact with Parents. Regular home
visits can be an important part of DHS's responsibilities to
assess home placement for children, but here, DHS's alleged
failure to conduct monthly visits does not provide substantial
evidence that DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify
Mother and Father with the Children.
(4) Malama Recovery Services is an outside substance
abuse treatment provider. DHS was not legally obligated to
obtain services for Mother from an outside provider. Cf. In re
Doe, 100 Hawai#i 335, 345, 60 P.3d 285, 295 (2002) (holding that
it was not reasonable to expect DHS to provide services to an
incarcerated parent beyond what was available within the
corrections system). Nonetheless, the record establishes that
DHS was willing to work with Malama Recovery Services if Mother
provided medical consent, and that DHS tried to obtain such
consent.
(5) During mediation, all parties agreed to continue
trial if Mother and Father entered residential substance abuse
treatment before trial. As of March 29, 2022, however, neither
Mother nor Father was actually engaged in such treatment.
Moreover, Mother and Father's completion of substance abuse
assessments was not indicative of imminent entry into residential
treatment, as they previously obtained assessments without
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
following through with treatment. Thus, it was reasonable for
DHS to proceed to trial on the TPR Motion.
Next, we address Mother and Father's challenges to FOFs
71, 110, 111, 137, 155-59, and 177-79, and COLS 6 and 7.
FOF 71 provides:
71. Mother and Father are mostly appropriate at
visits and the Children appeared bonded to Mother and
[Father], but both could benefit with parenting education.
FOF 71 is supported by unchallenged FOFs 38, 43-47, and
58, which provide examples of shortcomings in parenting skills
that could benefit from parenting education. Taele's testimony
also supports FOF 71 by describing how the Children's behavioral
problems reflect parenting choices. Thus, the record contains
substantial evidence to support FOF 71.
FOFs 110 and 111 provide:
110. Mother did not complete any domestic violence
therapy and her safety issues with domestic violence were
not resolved.
111. [Father] did not complete any domestic violence
therapy and his safety issues with domestic violence were
not resolved.
FOFs 110 and 111 are supported by unchallenged FOFs 76-
109, which detail Mother's and Father's domestic violence issues,
DHS's referrals to domestic violence services, and Mother's
failure to complete, and Father's failure to begin, domestic
violence services. Thus, the record contains substantial
evidence to support FOFs 110 and 111.
FOF 137 provides:
137. Mother and [Father] never started substance
abuse treatment in November 2020.
FOF 137 is supported by unchallenged FOFs 112-36 and
138-53, which detail Mother and Father's substance abuse issues,
DHS's referrals to substance abuse services, and, notwithstanding
completion of substance abuse assessments, Mother and Father's
failure to begin substance abuse treatment in November 2020.
Additionally, Mother corroborated FOF 137 with respect to
herself, by testifying that she recently completed a substance
abuse assessment, but that she "never ever went to treatment in
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
[her] life." Thus, the record contains substantial evidence to
support FOF 137.
FOFs 155-59 provide:
155. Despite some setbacks and delays due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, Mother and [Father] had ample time to
resolve all of their safety issues, but in particular,
demonstrate that they could maintain prolonged and sustained
sobriety.
156. Despite some setbacks and delays due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the DHS made reasonable efforts to assist
Mother and [Father] in resolving and gave them the
reasonable opportunity to resolve their safety issues.
157. At the time of trial, Mother and [Father] had no
anticipated end date for substance abuse treatment and had
not resolved their safety issues stemming from ongoing poly-
substance abuse.
158. Because of Mother's and [Father's] consistent
failure to engage in and to follow through with substance
abuse treatment programs, and their relapses, at the time of
the trial, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Mother and
[Father] would be able to maintain sobriety over a prolonged
period of time.
. . . .
159. Mother is presently willing but not presently
able to provide a safe family home for the children even
with the assistance of a service plan due to her failure to
resolve her safety issues, failure to complete her domestic
violence and substance abuse programming, as well as her
unstable housing situation. It is not reasonably
foreseeable that Mother will become willing and able to
provide the children with a safe family home within a
reasonable amount of time, which shall not exceed two years
from the children's date of entry into foster care.
FOFs 155-59 are supported by the record. Unchallenged
FOFs 72-75 detail Mother and Father's unstable housing situation.
Unchallenged FOFs 76-109 detail domestic violence issues between
Mother and Father, and DHS's efforts to assist them resolve these
issues. Unchallenged FOFs 112-36 and 138-54 describe Mother and
Father's inability to maintain sobriety and DHS's efforts to
assist them resolve these issues. Testimony of Taele, Tovey,
Mother, and Father corroborate the uncontested FOFs by
discussing, among other things, referrals to substance abuse
services, Mother and Father's failure to follow through with
treatment, and Mother and Father's ongoing drug use. Thus, the
record contains substantial evidence to support FOFs 155-59.
10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
FOFs 177-79 provide:
177. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
case, the DHS has exerted reasonable and active efforts to
avoid foster placement of [the Children].
178. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
case, the DHS has exerted reasonable and active efforts to
reunify the Children with Mother and [Father] by identifying
necessary, appropriate, and reasonable services to address
their identified safety issues, and making the appropriate
and timely referrals for these services.
179. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
case, the DHS gave all of the parents every reasonable
opportunity to succeed in remedying the problems which
subjected the Children to substantial risk of being harmed
in the family home, and to reunify with the Children. The
DHS actively encouraged Mother and [Father] to participate
in necessary and reasonable services to allow them to
reunify with the children.
FOFs 177-79 are supported by unchallenged FOFs 72, 76,
89, 97, 112-15, 128, 129, 138, 146, 176, and 180, which detail
DHS's efforts to assist Mother and Father complete services to
achieve reunification with the Children, including repeated
referrals to services, supplying Mother and Father temporarily
with a cell phone, and supplying Mother and Father with bus
passes. Additionally, Taele's and Tovey's testimony supports
FOFs 177-79 by detailing their efforts described in the
uncontested FOFs. Thus, the record contains substantial evidence
to support FOFs 177-79.
COLs 6 and 7 provide:
6. The Children's legal mother, legal father,
adjudicated, presumed, or concerned natural father, as
defined under HRS Chapter 578A, are not presently willing
and able to provide the Child [sic] with a safe family home,
even with the assistance of a service plan.
7. It is not reasonably foreseeable that the
Children's legal mother, legal father, adjudicated,
presumed, or concerned natural father, as defined under HRS
Chapter 578A, will become willing and able to provide the
Child [sic] with a safe family home, even with the
assistance of a service plan, within a reasonable period of
time.
COLs 6 and 7 are not clearly erroneous. As discussed
above, substantial evidence supports the Family Court's
conclusions regarding Mother and Father's inability to provide
the Children with a safe family home. Additionally, the Family
Court considered the factors set forth in HRS § 587A-7(a) in
determining that Mother and Father could not provide the Children
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
with a safe family home now or in the reasonably foreseeable
future. Specifically, the record shows that the Family Court
considered at least the following HRS § 587A-7(a) factors: (1)
the Children's ages (see FOF 11); (2) harm and threatened harm to
the Children (see FOFs 32-51); (3) dates of the Children's out-
of-home placement (see FOFs 162-74); (4) the results of
psychiatric evaluations of Mother and Father (see FOFs 52-57);
(5) abusive or assaultive conduct by Mother and Father (see FOFs
76-109); (6) substance abuse (see FOFs 112-53); (7) completion of
services related to assaultive conduct and substance abuse (see
FOFs 76-109, 112-53); (8) attempts to locate and involve extended
family, specifically SO's legal father (see FOF 7); (9) whether
Mother and Father have resolved identified safety issues (see
FOFs 110-11, 155-59); and (10) DHS's assessment and
recommendation (see FOFs 177-79).
Based on the entire record in this case, including the
uncontested FOFs, the testimony presented at trial, and the FOFs
we have determined are supported by the record, we conclude that
the Family Court did not clearly err in determining there was
clear and convincing evidence that: (1) Mother and Father were
not presently willing and able to provide the Children with a
safe family home, even with the assistance of a service plan; and
(2) it is not reasonably foreseeable that Mother and Father will
become willing and able to provide the Children with a safe
family home, even with the assistance of a service plan, within a
reasonable period of time. However, a parent's parental rights
cannot be terminated if fewer than all of the requirements of HRS
§ 587A-33(a) are met. See In re R Children, 145 Hawai#i 477,
482-84, 454 P.3d 418, 423-25 (2019). Thus, we must also consider
whether clear and convincing evidence established that the
Permanent Plan was in the best interests of the Children. See
HRS § 587A-33(a)(3). We do so below.
B. Whether the Permanent Plan Was in The Children's Best
Interests
Mother and Father also appear to contend that the
Family Court erred in determining that the Permanent Plan was in
the Children's best interests. Mother and Father's objections to
12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
FOFs 188-90 and COL 9 appear to relate to this contention. We
address the contested FOFs and COLs in turn below.
FOF 188 provides:
188. The goal of the Permanent Plan is permanent
custody of the children with eventual adoption as it is in
the best interest of the children, given the children's
young age, the children's need for permanency, and the
statutory presumption in favor of children being promptly
and permanently placed with responsible and competent
substitute parents and families in safe and secure homes;
the presumption being given greater weight the younger the
child's age upon the date of entry into foster care.
(Emphasis added.)
FOF 188 is clearly erroneous because it omits a key
component of the Permanent Plan's goal, namely, adoption of the
Children by RCG. The Permanent Plan identifies RCG's home as
being the Children's permanent placement. The Permanent Plan
also states that RCG has formed close bonds with the Children,
provided a safe and stable home, and is willing to provide the
Children with a forever home. The Permanent Plan does not
identify any other presumptive adoptive parent. Additionally,
during trial, Taele testified that "[a]t the time that [DHS] did
the permanent plan the goal was to have them be adopted by
[RCG]." (Emphasis added.) On this record, the Permanent Plan's
goal was adoption by RCG. See Interest of IK, No. CAAP-20-
0000737, 2021 WL 4431327, at *10 (Haw. App. Sept. 27, 2021)
(mem.) (holding that a permanent plan identifying grandparents
and not identifying any other presumptive adoptive parents
indicated the plan's goal was adoption by grandparents).
Moreover, to the extent FOF 188 concludes that the
Permanent Plan is in the best interests of the Children, it is a
mixed finding of fact and conclusion of law that is not supported
by clear and convincing evidence. The record indicates that
prior to trial, GAL Hills expressed concerns about the placement
of all four Children with RCG, and on December 21, 2021, the
Family Court recognized that "there may be a need to split the
kids up" and "some kids are going to have to change placement
. . . ." To address potential conflicts of interest between the
Children, the Family Court appointed GAL Pollard to represent RE
and DE. Additionally, at trial, Taele testified that "some
13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
conflict" had arisen in RCG's home, resulting in SO moving into a
shelter and ultimately into a home with a new resource caregiver.
Accordingly, given the state of the record, there is no clear and
convincing evidence that the Permanent Plan – whose goal was
adoption by RCG – is in all of the Children's best interests.
Thus, the Family Court clearly erred in FOF 188.
FOF 189 provides:
189. Both the children's GALs stated their agreement
that the Permanent Plan dated October 11, 2021 with the
ultimate goal of adoption is in the children's best
interest.
FOF 189 is clearly erroneous. Neither GAL Hills nor
GAL Pollard testified at trial, and the record does not appear to
reflect that either GAL explicitly stated that the Permanent Plan
was in the Children's best interests. Thus, the record lacks
substantial evidence to support FOF 189.
FOF 190 provides:
190. The DHS social worker, Maili Taele, testified,
and the Court finds, that the Permanent Plan dated January
28, 2020 [sic], with the ultimate goal of adoption is in the
child's best interest.
FOF 190 is clearly erroneous for three reasons.6/
First, the record does not reflect that Taele explicitly
testified that the Permanent Plan was in any of the Children's
best interests. As such, FOF 190 is clearly erroneous with
respect to Taele. Second, to the extent FOF 190 concludes that
the Permanent Plan is in the "child's best interest," it does not
identify the child to which it refers. Third, the determination
of the child's best interest is a mixed finding of fact and
conclusion of law that is clearly erroneous for the same reason
as the corresponding conclusion in FOF 188, discussed above.
COL 9 provides:
9. The Permanent Plan dated October 11, 2021, with
the goal of adoption is in the best interest of the
children.
As discussed above regarding FOF 188, the goal of the
6/
We note that FOF 190 also appears to contain a typographical error
referencing the incorrect date of the Permanent Plan.
14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Permanent Plan was adoption of the Children by RCG. Given the
state of the record, there is no clear and convincing evidence
that the Permanent Plan is in all of the Children's best
interests. COL 9 is a mixed finding of fact and conclusion of
law that is clearly erroneous for the same reason as the
corresponding conclusion in FOF 188.
Because we conclude there was no clear and convincing
evidence to support the Family Court's determination that the
Permanent Plan is in the Children's best interests, not all of
the requirements of HRS § 587A-33(a) have been met in this case.
Thus, we conclude that the Family Court erred in entering the TPR
Order and Letters of Permanent Custody. See In re R Children,
145 Hawai#i at 482-84, 454 P.3d at 423-25.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Order Terminating
Parental Rights and Letters of Permanent Custody, entered on
March 29, 2022, and the Amended Order Terminating Parental Rights
and Amended Letters of Permanent Custody, entered on April 8,
2022, in the Family Court of the First Circuit, are vacated. We
remand the case to the Family Court for further proceedings and
findings, including to address whether the Permanent Plan — or
any updated permanent plan — is in all of the Children's best
interests and whether Parents' parental rights should be
terminated. The Family court may take further action as it deems
necessary, including but not limited to addressing any changed
circumstances in the case.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 14, 2023.
On the briefs: /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Chief Judge
Jacob G. Delaplane
(Law Office of Jacob G.
Delaplane) /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Associate Judge
Father.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Rebecca S. Lester
for Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Mother.
Gay M. Tanaka and
Julio C. Herrera,
Deputy Attorneys General,
for Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-
Appellee Department of Human
Services
16