NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
28-JUL-2020
08:10 AM
NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTEREST OF LC1
(FC-S NO. 18-00140)
AND
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTEREST OF LC2
(FC-S NO. 19-00132)
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.)
Mother-Appellant (Mother) appeals from, inter alia, the
August 6, 2019 Orders Concerning Child Protective Act (Custody
Orders), issued by the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family
Court).1 Mother also challenges various of the Family Court's
September 20, 2019 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOFs
and COLs).
1
The Honorable Bode A. Uale presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
In the Custody Orders, the Family Court revoked
Petitioner-Appellee Department of Human Services' (DHS) family
supervision of Mother and her child, LC1, confirmed DHS's custody
of LC1, and granted DHS's Petition for Temporary Custody of
Mother's child, LC2 (collectively, the Children).
On appeal, Mother contends that the Family Court erred
in COL 7 when it concluded that she was not willing and able to
provide a safe family home, even with the assistance of a service
plan. Mother principally argues the Family Court reversibly
erred when it admitted into evidence State's Exhibit 6, Queen's
Medical Center records that include toxicology results for Mother
and LC2 (Toxicology Report), or otherwise relied on the
Toxicology Report, without a sufficient foundation and without it
being properly admitted into evidence. She further argues that,
without the exhibit, there was insufficient evidence to show that
she and LC2 tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine.
Relatedly, Mother challenges and/or otherwise contends that FOFs
34, 38, 46, 47, 50, 51, 70, 78, 79, 81-87, 89-94 are clearly
erroneous. In addition, Mother submits that she did not receive
a fair trial because the Family Court based its decision in part
on the court's feeling that Mother had "duped" the court in prior
proceedings with respect to her alleged drug use. Finally,
Mother contends that the Family Court applied the wrong standard
to her motion for reconsideration and reversibly erred in denying
that motion.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we
resolve Mother's points of error as follows:
Mother argues that the Family Court reversibly erred by
considering, without a sufficient foundation or proper admission
into evidence, the Toxicology Report, which purportedly shows
that on May 21, 2019, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine
and amphetamine when she was admitted to Queen's Medical Center
(Queen's) for LC2's birth, and on May 22, 2019, when LC2 was
born, that Mother and LC2 tested positive for methamphetamine and
amphetamine.
An evidentiary hearing was held on July 31, 2019.
Although the Family Court denied a motion to strike the
Toxicology Report, it is unclear whether the Toxicology Report
was admitted into evidence at the July 31, 2019 hearing. DHS
witnesses included Sherrilyn Watai (Nurse Watai), a registered
nurse at Queen's, where LC2 was born. Nurse Watai testified,
inter alia, that she collected a specimen from LC2 of meconium,
which is a baby's first stool, and sent the specimen to the
hospital's lab. She stated that she believed that the specimen
was sent out to Diagnostic Laboratory Services (DLS) for testing,
and that testing is not run within the Queen's system. Nurse
Watai did not testify as to the contents of the Toxicology Report
or lay any further foundation for the admission of the report.
DHS also called Dr. Clifford Wong (Dr. Wong), who was
employed as the director of the toxicology department at Clinical
Laboratories of Hawaii (Clinical Labs). Dr. Wong testified
regarding Clinical Labs' drug testing of hair samples. On cross-
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
examination of Dr. Wong, a Clinical Labs report showing negative
drug test results for Mother's hair sample was admitted into
evidence. When asked on direct examination about meconium drug
testing, he stated that Clinical Labs does not do such testing
in-house, but he was familiar with the testing; he answered
various questions about the nature and significance of meconium
drug testing. Dr. Wong was shown what appears to have been the
Toxicology Report, and he stated that he did not know Queen's
procedures for processing meconium, but that the report he was
shown stated that a specimen was sent to a testing laboratory in
Illinois, United States Drug Testing Labs. The report shown to
Dr. Wong was not admitted into evidence through his testimony,
and no attempt was made to elicit foundational testimony from Dr.
Wong.
DHS called Lisa Kunioka (Ms. Kunioka), an assessment
worker in DHS's Child Welfare Services, whom the court qualified
as an expert in child welfare services. Ms. Kunioka testified
that her supervisor told her to remove LC2 from Mother's custody.
She said that she then called Queen's and spoke to someone on the
telephone, whom she believed was the charge nurse, as well as a
hospital social worker, to confirm that Mother and LC2 tested
positive for methamphetamine. Mother objected to the testimony
on the grounds that DHS was attempting to use an expert to allow
hearsay testimony as to the contents of a report with no
underlying indicia of reliability and that the contents were
based on statements from other people. It was further argued
that her opinion as to harm should not be allowed if she did not
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
have any underlying facts on which to base her opinion. All
objections were overruled. Although Ms. Kunioka was shown the
Toxicology Report at the hearing, she did not testify that she
relied on the report, and the report was not admitted into
evidence through her testimony.
DHS also called Lena Kakehi (Ms. Kakehi), a DHS child
and adult protective services specialist. The court qualified
Ms. Kakehi as an expert in child welfare services, noting in part
that she was the current case manager in this case. She
testified that she was informed by Ms. Kunioka of the positive
drug tests. She offered no testimony regarding the Toxicology
Report.
After testimony was concluded, Mother asked the court
to strike the Toxicology Report because the State did not present
its witness who was slated to authenticate the document and
provide information about the drug testing reflected in the
report. At the conclusion of arguments, the court orally ruled
that it was not striking the Toxicology Report because "it was
appropriately testified to by [N]urse Watai and, also, Dr.
Clifford Wong made comments about the testing." The court then
stated: "You know, I just feel like I was duped by your client,
Mr. Haia, when I returned the child to her, honestly feeling
like, you know, she was no longer using." It is clear from the
court's further remarks, as well as the written FOFs and COLs
that the court was ruling against Mother based on the positive
drug test contained in the Toxicology Report.
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Mother argues that the Toxicology Report should not
have been admitted in evidence due to a lack of foundation. The
State argues that Nurse Watai's credible testimony that she took
LC2's meconium, and Dr. Wong's credible testimony regarding the
significance of a positive meconium test, provided sufficient
foundation for the Toxicology Report to be admitted into evidence
or otherwise relied on by the Family Court. The State's argument
is without merit.
In State v. Williams, 146 Hawai#i 62, 74-75, 456 P.3d
135, 147-48 (2020), the Hawai#i Supreme Court recently considered
whether a family court abused its discretion in admitting certain
x-rays into evidence due to a lack of foundation. The supreme
court addressed the sufficiency of the foundation for the
admission of these particular x-rays as follows:
State's Exhibits 3 and 4 would have been admissible as
a "record of regularly conducted activity" pursuant to
[Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE)] Rule 803(b)(6) if
sufficient foundation was laid as to their authenticity by
"the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness,
or by certification that complies with rule 902(11) or a
statute permitted certification[.]" There was no
certification, and Dr. Polk was not a "custodian" of records
of Tripler. The issue therefore is whether Dr. Polk could
be deemed an "other qualified witness" for purposes of
laying a foundation for admission of the x-rays from
Tripler.
In State v. Fitzwater, 122 Hawai#i 354, 227 P.3d 520 (2010),
this court stated:
A person can be a "qualified witness" who can
authenticate a document as a record of regularly
conducted activity under HRE Rule 803(b)(6) or its
federal counterpart even if he or she is not an
employee of the business that created the document, or
has no direct, personal knowledge of how the document
was created. As one leading commentator has noted:
. . . The phrase "other qualified witness" is
given a very broad interpretation. The witness
need only have enough familiarity with the
record-keeping system of the business in
question to explain how the record came into
existence in the ordinary course of business.
The witness need not have personal knowledge of
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the actual creation of the documents or have
personally assembled the records. In fact, the
witness need not even be an employee of the
record-keeping entity as long as the witness
understands the entity's record-keeping system.
There is no requirement that the records have
been prepared by the entity that has custody of
them, as long as they were created in the
regular course of some entity's business.
The sufficiency of the foundation evidence
depends in part on the nature of the documents
at issue. Documents that are "standard records
of the type regularly maintained by firms in a
particular industry may require less by way of
foundation testimony than less conventional
documents proffered for admission as business
records."
5 Joseph McLaughlin, Weinstein's Federal Evidence
§ 803.08[8][a] (2d ed. 2009) (footnotes omitted).
122 Hawai#i at 366, 227 P.3d at 532 (footnote omitted)
(ellipsis in original).
Dr. Polk had apparently worked for Tripler as a
resident for four years in the late 1970s, but there was no
foundation laid sufficient to render him an "other qualified
witness" as to Tripler's x-rays. In addition, the ICA's
statement that "[x]-ray results are the type of data that
doctors reasonably rely on in rendering a diagnosis and both
doctors testified as to their observations that [minor son]
suffered a fractured femur" as a basis for its conclusion
that the admission of the x-rays was harmless does not go to
the issue of whether sufficient foundation had been laid for
their admission, but only as to a basis for expert testimony
pursuant to HRE Rule 703 (1984).
Thus, insufficient foundation was laid for the
admission of State's Exhibits 3 and 4.
Id. (footnote omitted).
In this case, there was no certification. Dr. Wong was
not a custodian of the records of Queen's (and he did not
otherwise work for Queen's), he specifically testified that he
did not know Queen's procedures related to meconium testing, and
there was no foundation laid sufficient to render him an "other
qualified witness" as to Queen's record-keeping system and/or
that of a third-party testing laboratory used by Queen's. Nurse
Watai was employed by Queen's and testified as to the collection
of the meconium specimen and the transmission of the specimen to
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Queen's lab. However, she had no specific knowledge of what
happened to the specimen after that, mistakenly believing that it
was sent to DLS, and she was not offered as a custodian of
records for Queen's or as someone with familiarity with the
Queen's record-keeping system to explain how the Toxicology
Report from United States Drug Testing Labs was created and
incorporated into Queen's records. The person that was
apparently intended to be offered as a witness for that purpose,
APRN-RX Justine Tye, was not called as a witness by the State.
Thus, insufficient foundation was laid for the
admission of the Toxicology Report and the Family Court abused
its discretion in admitting it into evidence and/or otherwise
considering it. The Family Court made findings regarding
Mother's and LC2's positive drug tests based on the Toxicology
Report, and made further findings that, based on those positive
drug tests, it was more likely than not that Mother used and
exposed LC2 to drugs in utero. Those findings were central to
the Family Court's findings that Mother has an unresolved
substance abuse problem and its conclusion that Mother was not
presently willing and able to provide the Children with a safe
family home, even with the assistance of a service plan. On the
record in this case, we cannot conclude that the Family Court's
error in admitting and/or otherwise considering the Toxicology
Report was harmless.
Therefore, we conclude that the Custody Orders must be
vacated on these grounds. Accordingly, we need not address
Mother's other arguments on appeal.
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
For the reasons stated above, the Family Court's August
6, 2019 Custody Orders are vacated, and this case is remanded to
the Family Court for further proceedings pursuant to HRS Chapter
587A concerning the safety and health of the Children.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 28, 2020.
On the briefs:
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Thomas A.K. Haia, Chief Judge
for Mother-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Gay M. Tanaka, Associate Judge
Julio C. Herrera,
Erin Torres, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Deputy Attorneys General, Associate Judge
for Petitioner-Appellee
Department of Human Services.
9