NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
23-FEB-2022
07:33 AM
Dkt. 109 SO
NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
IN THE INTEREST OF KD1 AND KD2
(CASE NO. FC-S 17-0093K)
AND
IN THE INTEREST OF AW
(CASE NO. FC-S 17-0095K)
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(KONA DIVISION)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and McCullen, JJ.)
Appellant Mother (Mother) appeals pro se from: (1) the
Order Granting Motion to Terminate Parental Rights, and Denying
Mother's Motion for Reunification filed on December 8, 2020, in
FC-S No. 17-0093K; and (2) the Order Granting Motion to Terminate
Parental Rights, and Denying Mother's Motion for Reunification
filed on December 8, 2020, in FC-S No. 17-0095K, which were both
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
filed in the Family Court of the Third Circuit (Family Court).1
On July 30, 2021, the Family Court entered an Amended Order
Granting Motion to Terminate Parental Rights and Denying Mother's
Motion for Reunification, which adjudicated a request to amend
the court's prior orders (Amended Order); no appeal was filed
from the Amended Order.
In FC-S No. 17-0093K, Mother's parental rights to two
of her children (KD1 and KD2) were terminated. In FC-S No. 17-
0095K, Mother's parental rights to a third child (AW) were
terminated.
On appeal, Mother does not state points of error in
compliance with applicable rules (see Rule 11(a) of the Rules
Expediting Child Protective Appeals), but contends that: (1)
there was a lack of facts and circumstances required to establish
the Family Court's original jurisdiction under Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) §§ 587A-5 (2018) and 571-11(9) (Supp. 2020); (2)
Petitioner-Appellee the State of Hawai#i, Department of Human
Services (DHS), failed to provide reasonable efforts to prevent
removal of the children and reunify the family; (3) there was not
clear and convincing evidence Mother was not presently willing
and able to provide a safe family home, even with the assistance
of a service plan; (4) there was not clear and convincing
evidence it was not reasonably foreseeable Mother would become
1/
The Honorable Joseph P. Florendo, Jr. presided.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
willing and able to provide a safe family home, even with the
assistance of a service plan, within a reasonable period of time;
(5) citing In re T.M., 131 Hawai#i 419, 319 P.3d 338 (2014),
Mother disputes that "[t]he Court has provided Mother and Father
with adequate legal representation;" (6) the Family Court erred
by finding the permanent plan was in the best interest of her
children; and (7) Findings of Fact (FOFs) A, C2, G, G4, I, J, L,
Z, BB, DD, and EE and Conclusions of Law (COLs) 1, 2, 5, and 6
are erroneous.
The challenged FOFs and COLs are as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A) The Court finds that the Department has presented
clear and convincing evidence that:
1) [KD1] and [KD2]'s legal mother, legal father,
adjudicated, presumed, or, concerned father as
defined under HRS Ch. 578 are willing, but not
presently 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 [KD1]
and [KD2]'s legal mother, legal father
adjudicated and presumed, or concerned father as
defined under HRS Ch. 578 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,
which shall not exceed two (2) years from the
children's date of entry into foster care
(emphasis added);
3) [AW]'s legal mother, legal father,
adjudicated, presumed, or, concerned father as
defined under HRS Ch. 578 are willing, but not
presently able to provide the children with a
safe family home, even with the assistance of a
service plan, and,
4) It is not reasonably foreseeable that [KD1]
and [KD2]'s legal mother, legal father
adjudicated and presumed, or concerned father as
defined under HRS Ch. 578 will become willing
and able to provide the children with a safe
family home, even with the assistance of a
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
service plan within a reasonable period of time,
which shall not exceed two (2) years from the
children's date of entry into foster care
(emphasis added); 2
. . . .
C) Less than a month later, on January 3, 2018, the
Department of Human Services (hereinafter DHS) filed a
Supplemental Safe Family Home Report,
. . . .
2) On February 27, 2018 Joan Jackson, who was
appointed to represent Mother appeared in court,
however Mother failed to appear;
. . . .
G) The court has provided Mother and Father with adequate
legal representation;
. . . .
4) Mother failed to appear at a hearing on
February 27, 2018;
. . . .
I) Mother was subsequently placed on deferred status on
August 20, 2018, however because she violated the
terms of her deferred sentence by testing positive for
methamphetamine eight (8) times between December 2018
and March 2020, her deferred status was revoked and
she was convicted and placed on probation on March 6,
20204;
4
Testimony of Wendy Mitchell
J) On or about January 29, 2019 Mother was discharged
from Lokahi Outpatient Treatment program because she
failed to show up for a random test on August 13,
2018, tested positive for methamphetamine on November
13, and December 20, 2018, and failed to abide by a
"last chance behavioral contract", further inpatient
residential treatment was recommented 5;
5
Supplemental Safe Family Home Report filed
January 29, 2019.
. . . .
L) Mother completed the Access Capabilities outpatient
program in May 2020, however, the Department of Human
Services does not find that Mother's completion of
2/
Paragraph 4) refers to KD1 and KD2, instead of AW, by mistake.
This error was corrected in the Amended Order.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
this outpatient program satisfies the Service Plan's
requirement of an in-patient recovery program 9;
(footnote 8 omitted)
9
Testimony of Tina Haalilio see also
February 23, 2020 Safe Family Home Report
which includes a December 19, 2019 Memo
from Dr. Christopher Au of Access wherein
he opines: "... a stint of residential
care should give her the structure and
starting point for lifelong sobriety. Due
to her emotional stressors outpatient may
not be the most appropriate level of care
without at least a month of sobriety under
her belt."
. . . .
Z) The earliest that Mother would be able to complete the
required inpatient substance abuse counseling, which
the DHS would require prior to reunification, would be
six (6) months from the date of the hearing on this
matter, and more than two (2) years from the date that
children entered foster care; (footnote omitted)
. . . .
BB) All three (3) children have improved behaviors and are
doing well in their respective placements;
1) Freida Pavao, [AW]'s resource care giver, testified
that [AW] is no longer taking medications, that her
tantrums have stopped, and the lack of in-person
visits with Mother have led to improved behavior
overall;
2) Maile Pavao, [AW]'s mental health therapist,
reports that [AW] is no longer taking medications, and
her behavior has improved;
3) [AW] requires a structured, consistent environment;
. . . .
DD) The proposed Permanency Plan, which is attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" is in the best interests of the
children;
EE) Under the circumstances that are presented in this
case, DHS has made reasonable efforts to finalize the
permanency plan which in this care is permanent out of
home placement; (footnote omitted).
. . . .
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1) DHS has proven by clear and convincing evidence that
Mother and/or Father, while they may be willing, are
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
not presently able to provide the parent's children
with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a
service plan; and [(emphasis added)]
2) That while Mother and Father may be willing, it is not
reasonably foreseeable that the Mother and/or Father,
whose rights are subject to termination, will become
able to provide the children with a safe home, even
with the assistance of a service plan, within two (2)
years from the children's date of entry into foster
care [(emphasis added)];
. . . .
5) It is in the best interests of the children, who are
ages 5, 7, and 10, that they be promptly and
permanently placed with responsible and competent
substitute parents and family in a safe and secure
home;
6) The proposed permanency plan is in the best interests
of the children[.]
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 by the parties, we
resolve Mother's contentions as follows:
(1) Mother contends that the Family Court erred in its
invocation of jurisdiction in the March 13, 2018 Orders
Establishing Family Court Jurisdiction filed in FC-S Nos. 17-
0093K and 17-0095K. The Family Court found, inter alia, that
"[t]here exists an adequate basis to invoke Family Court
jurisdiction. . . . Jurisdiction is based on harm and threatened
harm to the children due to parental substance abuse, domestic
violence, and the failure to cooperate with voluntary services."
Mother argues that "[t]he ultimate question is whether, on the
record before the court, there was evidence that the family court
found that the child's physical or psychological health or
welfare had been harmed or was subject to threatened harm by the
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
acts or omissions of the child's family." Mother argues that
"[w]ithout having a signed affidavit from a credible witness, any
relevant hearsay is inadmissible as evidence in any ruling."
It appears that the Family Court continued the
temporary foster custody hearings in both cases several times
until its determination and invocation of jurisdiction on March
13, 2018. Mother does not point to where in the record she
objected on the basis of hearsay or lack of a signed affidavit,
the record on appeal does not contain transcripts from the
December 21, 2017, January 3, 2018, February 7, 2018, and March
13, 2018 hearings that preceded the courts invocation of
jurisdiction, and nothing in the court's minutes indicate that an
evidentiary objection was raised. Therefore, we conclude that
this argument was waived. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4); see also Bettencourt v.
Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995).
Mother also disputes the change from family supervision
of KD1 and KD2 to foster custody on June 5, 2018, due to alleged
drug use and pending criminal charges for three counts of
Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, one count of
Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the Third Degree, and one count
of Drug Paraphernalia, on the grounds that she was denied her
right to a contested hearing, and that the Family Court erred by
granting temporary foster custody on June 12, 2018, because
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
"[t]he Children were never in imminent danger, or at risk of
harm."
However, the record indicates that on June 12, 2018,
Mother objected to foster custody and a contested hearing was
scheduled. The record further indicates that a contested hearing
on foster custody was held on November 16, 2018. Transcripts for
the June 12, 2018 hearing, and the November 16, 2018 contested
case hearing are not in the record on appeal. Therefore, this
court is unable to review Mother's arguments that the children
were not in imminent danger or at risk of harm. See Bettencourt,
80 Hawai#i at 230, 909 P.2d at 558.
Mother further argues that no investigation was done to
determine whether it was necessary or advisable to take KD1 and
KD2 into custody. See HRS § 587A-11 (2018) ("Upon receiving a
report that a child is subject to imminent harm, has been harmed,
or is subject to threatened harm, and when an assessment is
required by this chapter, the department shall cause such
investigation to be made as it deems to be appropriate.")
However, a Safe Family Home Report, dated December 13, 2017,
provided a history of DHS's involvement with the family and
explained the reason for assuming temporary foster custody of KD1
and KD2. The family was in Voluntary Case Management, Mother
cancelled six appointments for a substance abuse assessment,
between February 28, 2017 and July 31, 2017, Mother did not show
up to five drug tests and tested positive once for amphetamines
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
and methamphetamines. Father was referred for a substance abuse
assessment in April of 2017, but did not complete it until August
2017 and was a no-show for six out of eight drug tests between
January 27, 2017 and September 20, 2017. On October 10, 2017,
DHS received a call alleging Mother was using and dealing
methamphetamines. On October 11, 2017, DHS was informed Mother
was minimally compliant with Voluntary Case Management services
and Father did not participate at all. On October 27, 2017, a
DHS social worker met with Mother and Father in person and
questioned them about participating in services. Mother stated
that missed and rescheduled appointments were difficult to
attend; however, neither parent was employed at the time. Mother
denied using drugs and claimed she never used methamphetamine,
despite a prior positive test for methamphetamine. On November
9, 2017, a DHS social worker called Mother to follow up about
missed appointments for KD2 to be evaluated for Early
Intervention Services, but Mother responded that she was not
worried about her children's well-being or development. Mother
was informed her case was being elevated because she was not
participating in services and needed to exhibit more
responsibility for her children's well-being, but DHS did not
hear back from Mother. On December 8, 2017, two DHS social
workers made an unannounced visit to the family home and
observed, inter alia, that KD2, who was only two years old at the
time, was wandering around the yard strewn with trash and debris.
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
KD1 and KD2 were then taken into protective custody; Mother was
arrested on an outstanding warrant. Thus, the record
demonstrates that Mother's argument is without merit.
(2) Mother contends that DHS failed to provide
reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the children on June 5,
2018, and to reunify the family.3 Mother appears to refer to
HRS § 587A-26(c)(2)(A) (2018) which requires the Family Court to
consider whether DHS "made reasonable efforts to prevent or
eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's family
home before the child was placed in foster care" to challenge
continued temporary foster custody after June 5, 2018.
In a Supplemental Safe Family Home Report, dated June
8, 2018, DHS explained its reasoning for removing KD1 and KD2
from family supervision and placing them into temporary foster
custody. DHS stated that on June 1, 2018, a caller informed DHS
that Mother was arrested "for dealing meth," a drug raid was
conducted at the family residence, Mother was in custody, and KD1
and KD2 were at home with Father. The caller also reported
Mother and Father fought daily and that the children were
"malnourished, as the parents are on meth." DHS deemed the
family home to no longer be safe and was unable to risk leaving
the children in the home due to Mother's arrest on drug charges,
the fact that neither parent notified DHS of Mother's arrest, and
3/
Only KD1 and KD2 were taken into temporary foster custody on June
5, 2018.
10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
that Father allowed Mother back into the family home after she
was placed on supervised release. DHS considered leaving the
children in the family home but concluded that the risk was
unacceptable because drugs were present in the home where both
parents resided, Mother had been arrested on drug charges related
to the home, neither parent informed DHS of the drug-related
charges, and both parents continued to reside in the family home
after Mother's arrest. DHS could not prevent or eliminate the
need to remove the children from the family home due to Mother's
and Father's conduct. Therefore, the Family Court did not err by
continuing temporary foster custody.
DHS did not fail to provide Mother with a reasonable
opportunity to reunify with the children. "DHS is under an
obligation to provide a reasonable opportunity to parents through
a service plan to reunify the family." In re Doe, 100 Hawai#i
335, 343, 60 P.3d 285, 293 (2002) (interpreting HRS Chapter 587,
the predecessor to HRS Chapter 587A). After the Family Court
adjudicated jurisdiction on March 13, 2018, Mother and Father
were ordered to follow an Interim Family Service Plan, and then
on August 28, 2018, Mother and Father were ordered to follow a
Family Service Plan, dated August 13, 2018. "[A] claim for
additional services and accommodations must be timely made." Id.
at 344, 60 P.3d at 294. Mother does not point to where in the
record she raised the issue of DHS's lack of reasonable efforts
to reunify her with the children or requested additional or
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
different services, and we find nothing in the record to support
this argument. Therefore, we conclude that Mother's argument is
without merit.
(3) The record supports the conclusion that there was
clear and convincing evidence Mother was not presently willing
and able to provide a safe family home, even with the assistance
of a service plan. HRS § 587A-33(a)(1). As discussed, DHS
initially petitioned for temporary foster custody of the children
in December 2017 due to Mother using and/or dealing
methamphetamine, minimal compliance with Voluntary Case
Management services, and no-shows for drug testing. At the time
of trial on DHS's Motions to Terminate Parental Rights in
November 2020, Mother's remaining safety issue was drug use.
Mother's probation officer, Wendy Mitchell (Mitchell) testified
that although Mother completed outpatient treatment in May 2020,
Mother admitted to using methamphetamine on June 17, 2020.
Mother tested positive for methamphetamine on December 3 and 13,
2019, and January 21, February 26, June 17, and October 9, 2020.
A DHS social worker, Tina Haalilio (Haalilio) testified Mother
had three no shows for drug tests since June 2020, which are
considered positives. Mother's inability to parent while using
methamphetamine resulted in the children being neglected, not
being fed properly, appearing dirty and disheveled, and having
behavioral issues. In addition, even when Mother tested positive
she did not accept the result and made excuses why it could be a
12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
mistake. For nearly three years, Mother failed to address the
safety concerns stemming from her drug use. Therefore, we
conclude that the Family Court did not err by finding Mother
could not presently provide a safe family home, even with the
assistance of a service plan.
(4) There was clear and convincing evidence it was not
foreseeable Mother would become willing and able to provide a
safe family home, even with the assistance of a service plan,
within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed two years from
the date the children entered foster care. AW entered foster
care on February 6, 2018, and KD1 and KD2 entered foster care on
June 5, 2018. Among other things, Haalilio testified that due to
Mother's substance abuse safety issues, Mother would need an
additional six months from November of 2020 to be ready to create
a safe family home. Accordingly, it was not reasonably
foreseeable Mother would become willing and able to provide a
safe family home, even with the assistance of a service plan,
within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed two years from
the date the children entered foster care.
(5) Citing In re T.M., Mother disputes that "[t]he
Court has provided Mother and Father with adequate legal
representation." Mother claims she was not appointed counsel
prior to the initial hearing on the petition for temporary foster
custody of KD1 and KD2 in December 2017 as required by In re T.M.
13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
In In re T.M., 131 Hawai#i at 436, 319 P.3d at 355, the
Hawaii Supreme Court held: "We direct that upon the filing date
of this opinion, trial courts must appoint counsel for indigent
parents upon the granting of a petition to DHS for temporary
foster custody of their children." In In re L.I., 149 Hawai#i
118, 122, 482 P.3d 1079, 1083 (2021), the court clarified "that
In re T.M. mandated that family courts appoint counsel for
indigent parents when DHS files a petition asserting custody over
a child."
Here, in FC-S No, 17-0095K, the initial temporary
foster custody hearing on December 21, 2017, was continued and
was further continued on January 3, 2018, until after Mother
completed an application for court-appointed counsel and
established she was indigent and was granted court-appointed
counsel on January 4, 2018. Therefore, Mother's right to counsel
was not violated in FC-S No. 17-0095K.
In FC-S No. 17-0093K, on December 15, 2017, during the
initial temporary foster custody hearing, court minutes indicate
that Mother acknowledged she was given an application for court-
appointed counsel, and the Family Court offered to continue the
proceeding so counsel could be appointed. Mother admits that
"Mother declined the court's recommendation to continue the
matter at a further hearing in order for Mother to receive an
appointment of counsel." Court minutes of December 21, 2017,
indicate Mother was again advised that she had a right to counsel
14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
and to let the Family Court know at any time if she would like to
invoke that right all she needed to do was fill out an
application and if she qualified she would be appointed counsel.
Court minutes of January 3, 2018, indicate the Family Court
"would like to afford the parents an attorney before granting
[Temporary Foster Custody]." Court minutes of June 12, 2018,
indicate that Mother's court-appointed counsel in FC-S No. 17-
0095K stated Mother was not asking for counsel in FC-S No. 17-
0093K, but nevertheless wanted the children to be returned that
day and would contest foster care. Counsel stated she was only
appointed in FC-S No. 17-0095K, and Mother just told her "maybe
she should represent herself." The Family Court noted that
Mother and Father had the right to counsel and can fill out an
application and the matter would be continued, or they could go
forward without counsel; the court suggested they get counsel.
Although Mother did not state she wanted counsel, the Family
Court continued the matter to July 3, 2018. Court minutes of
July 3 2018, indicate that the Family Court again recommended
parents be represented by an attorney, Mother and Father stated
they would like to proceed without an attorney, the Family Court
then advised them their testimony could be used against them and
Mother had a pending criminal drug case, but Mother indicated she
would still like to go forward. Further into the hearing, the
Family Court again advised Mother she needed to consult with an
attorney and that if she wanted one and could not afford one that
15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
one would be appointed for her. Court minutes of August 14,
2018, indicate that Mother's counsel in FC-S No. 17-0095K stated
parents have chosen to be pro se in FC-S No. 17-0093K and the
Family Court again advised them of their right to be represented
by an attorney. Court minutes of October 23, 2018, indicate that
Mother asked her court-appointed attorney in FC-S No. 17-0095K to
withdraw. Court minutes of November 16, 2018, indicate Mother
did not object to the withdrawal of her counsel and that after
the Family Court advised Mother of her right to be represented by
an attorney, Mother indicated she did not want an attorney at
that time. The Family Court then advised Mother of her right to
an attorney in the future. On July 18, 2019, the Family Court
appointed counsel for Mother in both cases after she completed an
Application for Court-Appointed Counsel on July 18, 2019.
The record clearly demonstrates Mother was advised of
her right to counsel multiple times, the Family Court recommended
Mother obtain counsel multiple times, Mother did not request
counsel be appointed in FC-S No. 17-0093K, Mother refused to
continue hearings so counsel could be appointed, and the record
in FC-S No. 17-0093K did not demonstrate that Mother was indigent
until she completed an application for appointment of counsel,
after which she was immediately appointed counsel at her request.
We conclude that the Family Court did not fail to timely appoint
counsel for Mother in either case.
16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(6) The Family Court did not err by finding the
permanent plan was in the best interest of the children. At a
termination of parental rights hearing, the court shall determine
whether there exists clear and convincing evidence that "[t]he
proposed permanent plan is in the best interests of the child."
HRS § 587A-33(a)(3) (2018). The permanent plan shall state
whether the permanency goal will be achieved through adoption,
legal guardianship, or permanent custody. HRS § 587A-32(a)(1)
(2018). In deciding if the proposed permanent plan is in the
best interest of the child, the Family Court must "[p]resume 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 must "[g]ive
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[.]" HRS § 587A-
33(a)(3)(A) and (B).
Here, the April 30, 2020 Permanency Plans for the
children recommended the permanency goal of adoption. Although
Mother makes several arguments in conjunction with this point of
error, none relate to whether adoption, legal guardianship, or
permanent custody is in the best interest of the children.
Mother does not point to any evidence in the record that would be
sufficient to rebut the presumption that it is in the best
interest of the children to be promptly and permanently placed
17
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
with responsible and competent substitute parents and family in a
safe and secure home. We conclude that Mother's challenge to the
permanent plan is without merit.
(7) Mother contends that FOFs A, C2, G, G4, I, J, L,
Z, BB, DD, and EE, and COLs 1, 2, 5, and 6 are erroneous. As
discussed above, FOF A is not clearly erroneous because there was
clear and convincing evidence Mother was not presently willing
and able to provide a safe family home, even with the assistance
of a service plan, and it was not reasonably foreseeable Mother
would become willing and able to provide a safe family home, even
with the assistance of a service plan, within a reasonable period
of time.
FOFs C2 and G4 are clearly erroneous to the extent they
state that Mother failed to appear for a hearing on February 27,
2018. A February 27, 2018 Order Continuing Return Hearing for
All Three Children indicated that Mother was present for a
hearing on February 27, 2018. However, such error is harmless
because it does not appear that the Family Court based any order
or decision on the erroneous finding of fact. As discussed
above, Mother was provided with adequate legal representation,
therefore, FOF G is not otherwise clearly erroneous.
Mother provides no argument as to why FOF I and J are
erroneous. Therefore, those points of error are waived. See
HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
18
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Mother objects to FOFs L and Z due to their
characterization that Mother's service plan required "inpatient"
substance abuse treatment. The record indicates Mother's service
plans required her to participate in any recommended treatment or
one approved by DHS and that two service providers recommended
Mother participate in residential treatment. However, there is
nothing in the record that equates residential treatment with
inpatient treatment. Therefore, it appears that, to the extent
FOFs L and Z state Mother was required to participate in
inpatient substance abuse treatment, they are erroneous.
However, any such error is harmless. Mother does not contend
that she completed a residential substance abuse treatment
program or that her completion of Access Capabilities was either
a recommended treatment or approved by DHS. Mother did not
complete the recommended substance abuse treatment as required by
her service plans. Moreover, Mother's substance abuse was
unresolved almost two and a half years after the children entered
foster care. Therefore, any error in FOFs L and Z did not affect
the Family Court's determination that Mother was not presently
willing and able to provide a safe family home, even with the
assistance of a service plan.
Mother contends that FOF BB, which found the children
were doing well in their respective placements, is erroneous
because according to the record the children are not doing well
and "the reports have demonstrated the opposite of improved
19
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
behaviors, at a consistent decline." AW's resource caregiver
testified that when AW first came to her she threw major tantrums
and lied a lot but since being with her it lessened and there
were no incidents in the past five months. AW's therapist
testified AW stopped using medication over the past few months,
AW seemed more in touch with her feelings now, AW was doing
better with issues of stealing and lying more recently, AW's
behavior recently improved and there was consistent change in her
behavior, and AW needed consistency and would not do well with
unstructured time. An Initial Mental Health Evaluation that
assessed KD2 on June 18, 2020, stated that KD2's resource
caregiver reported that KD2 "made drastic improvements in the
past two years that he lived with her," but he was still a
challenge. The Fourth Report of Guardian Ad Litem, dated
February 26, 2020, reported that KD1 was happy living with the
resource caregiver, felt safe, liked everything about living
there, did chores, loved school, was doing well in school, and
school staff had no concerns about KD1's attitude or behavior.
We conclude that the record supports FOF BB. Thus, it is not
clearly erroneous.
Mother contends that FOF DD, which found the proposed
permanency plan was in the best interest of the children, is
erroneous because the Family Court failed to find Mother was
unfit and the best interest standard does not apply. As stated
above, the Family Court must find by clear and convincing
20
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
evidence "[t]he proposed permanent plan is in the best interests
of the child." HRS § 587A-33(a)(3). Therefore, the best
interest of the child standard applies. Contrary to Mother's
claim, the Family Court is not required to specifically find that
a parent is unfit when terminating parental rights. HRS § 587A-
33.
Mother contends FOF EE, which found DHS made reasonable
efforts to finalize the permanency plan, is erroneous because she
was not provided with the services needed for reunification. As
discussed above, Mother's claim regarding lack of a reasonable
effort to reunify is without merit.
Mother argues that COLs 1 and 2 are erroneous based
upon the same arguments in challenging FOF A. For the same
reasons as stated above, we conclude that COLs 1 and 2 are not
erroneous.
Mother argues that COL 5, which concluded it was in the
children's best interest to be promptly and permanently placed
with responsible and competent substitute parents and family in a
safe and secure home, is erroneous because the outcome of the
hearing would not change the children's placement, the children
need to be placed back home with their family, the Child
Protective Act, Social Security Act Title IV, and Adoption and
Safe Families Act all agree that the best interest of the child
is with parents when safe and appropriate, Mother is the only one
who should decide what is in the best interest of the children,
21
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the October 26, 2020 Proposed Permanent Plan is not in compliance
with the Child Protective Act because it does not have a
permanent placement for AW, and a DHS social worker reported
false information. The only cogent argument Mother makes in
support is that she, and not the Family Court, determines what is
in the best interest of the children, which is clearly contrary
to HRS § 587A-33(a)(3), which requires the Family Court to make
such a determination. Therefore, Mother's argument is without
merit.
Mother contends that COL 6, which concluded that the
proposed permanency plan was in the best interest of the
children, is erroneous because the Family Court was without clear
and convincing evidence that Mother was unable to provide a safe
family home. As discussed above, there was clear and convincing
evidence Mother was not presently willing and able to provide a
safe family home. Therefore, Mother's claim is without merit.
For these reasons, we affirm the Family Court's (1)
Order Granting Motion to Terminate Parental Rights, and Denying
Mother's Motion for Reunification filed on December 8, 2020, in
FC-S No. 17-0093K; and (2) Order Granting Motion to Terminate
22
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Parental Rights, and Denying Mother's Motion for Reunification
filed on December 8, 2020, in FC-S No. 17-0095K.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 23, 2022.
On the briefs:
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Sylvia Alicia Viera, Pro Se, Chief Judge
Mother-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Charles H. McCreary IV, Associate Judge
Patrick Pacual,
Julio Herrera, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Ian Tsuda, Associate Judge
Deputy Attorneys General,
for Petitioner-Appellee
Department of Human Services.
23