Woolford v. Woolford ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
24-APR-2023
07:57 AM
Dkt. 79 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
DARLENE MARIE WOOLFORD, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
DOUGLAS JAMES WOOLFORD, Respondent-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. FC-DA 21-1-0476)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)
Self-represented Respondent-Appellant Douglas J.
Woolford (Douglas) appeals from the September 7, 2021 Order for
Protection, filed by the Family Court of the Third Circuit
(family court).1
On appeal, Douglas raises the following points of
error: (1) Exhibit C should not have been admitted into evidence
because it was not related to any accusations of abuse;
(2) Exhibit D should not have been admitted into evidence because
it was not related to any accusations of abuse; (3) Petitioner-
Appellee Darlene M. Woolford (Darlene) committed perjury when
"[a]llegations reputed to have happened on 09/11/2021, are now
being alleged to have happened on 09/11/2020"; (4) his objection
was overruled for no conceivable reason while Darlene was
"allowed to make up whatever she wants with no witnesses or any
proof whatsoever - even after lying about the dates"; (5) his
1
The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
objection was overruled that Darlene was lying about an imminent
attack which never occurred; (6) his objection to Darlene's false
claim about their son's diagnosis was ignored; (7) his objections
to lies were overruled; (8) the family court did not ask for
proof or any indication of veracity and instead asked Darlene,
"How did it make you feel?" about her fabricated story; (9) his
objection to Darlene's statements were overruled, yet he cannot
defend himself from fabrications; (10) his objection to Darlene's
false claims was ignored; (11) he claimed everything Darlene
stated was made up but the family court stated, "It's not time of
argument," and dismissed his statement of fact; (12) one of
Darlene's witnesses should not have been allowed to testify
because she was not a witness to any of the allegations; (13) a
witness committed perjury by testifying Darlene chose to leave
the home, when in fact, the police forced her to leave; (14) his
daughter's testimony was limited to allegations related to
09/11/2020 and 08/24/2021 when Darlene was given time and leeway
to make up stories that had nothing to do with 09/11/2020 and
08/24/2021; and (15) Darlene stated the allegations could have
occurred on the 9th or 10th instead of the date she originally
stated, and the family court allowed her to lie with immunity.
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
Douglas's points of error as follows, and affirm.
In each of the above points of error, Douglas cites a
specific page of a transcript to support his claims.
When an appellant desires to raise any point on appeal
that requires consideration of the oral proceedings
before the court appealed from, the appellant shall
file with the appellate clerk, within 10 days after
filing the notice of appeal, a request or requests to
prepare a reporter's transcript of such parts of the
proceedings as the appellant deems necessary that are
not already on file in the appeal.
Hawai#i Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 10(b)(1)(A).
"The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show
error by reference to matters in the record, and he [or she] has
the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript."
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553,
558 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Union
Bldg. Materials Corp. v. The Kakaako Corp., 5 Haw. App. 146, 151,
682 P.2d 82, 87 (1984)).
Douglas did not file a request for transcripts for the
appeal.2 There are no transcripts in the record on appeal.3
Without a transcript there is no basis upon which to review the
alleged errors by the family court. Id. at 231, 909 P.2d at 559.
For the foregoing reasons, the September 7, 2021 Order
for Protection, filed by the Family Court of the Third Circuit,
is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 24, 2023.
On the briefs: /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Chief Judge
Douglas James Woolford,
Self Represented Respondent- /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Appellant. Associate Judge
Lockey E. White, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
(Lockey Legal LLLC), Associate Judge
for Petitioner-Appellee.
2
This court issued an "Order Regarding Request for Transcript" on
January 25, 2023 regarding the lack of a transcript request in the appeal,
allowing Douglas fifteen days to file such a request, and advising that
failure to file a transcript request by the deadline may result in exclusion
of any requested transcript from being part of the record on appeal, and that
any transcript not made part of the record on appeal will not be considered.
To date, no transcript request and no transcript have been filed in the
appellate docket.
3
It appears Douglas attached pages from a transcript to his Opening
Brief. However, the selected pages do not identify the proceeding and the
date of the proceeding, do not constitute a complete transcript, and do not
contain a court reporter's certification.
3