B.P. v. H.B.

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 5, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-22-0000222
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 05-JUN-2025 07:55 AM Dkt. 76 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

B.P., on behalf of K.B., a minor, Petitioner-Appellee, v. H.B., Respondent-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (FC-DA NO. 22-1-000064)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Respondent-Appellant H.B. (Father) appeals from the

February 28, 2022 Order For Protection (Order For Protection)

entered by the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court)1

in favor of Petitioner-Appellee B.P. (Mother) on behalf of a

minor K.B. (Child). Father also challenges some of the Family

Court's July 7, 2022 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

(FOFs/COLs).

Father raises two points of error on appeal, contending

that the Family Court erred in granting the Order For Protection

because: (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support

FOFs 15.k, 15.1, 15.m, 15.ee, 15.11, 16, and 17, and COLs 38-39,

41-44, 52, 55, 60, and 61; and (2) the Family Court admitted

inadmissible hearsay.

1 The Honorable Lesley N. Maloian presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

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 Father's

points of error as follows:

(1) Father argues that the challenged FOFs include

that Mother testified to the allegations set forth therein, but

that no such testimony was received by the court at trial.

Accordingly, Father argues, the FOFs lack substantial evidence in

support, as do the challenged COLs relying on those FOFs.

However, Mother testified, without objection, that the

information contained in the initial petition for an order of

protection (Petition) was related to Mother by Child and that

Mother absolutely believed that the information was true and

correct.

Although Father correctly argues that the Family Court

sustained objections to Mother's answers to two questions, those

questions were: "[w]hy are you asking for five years?" and "who

else was doing the name calling toward [Child]?" The first

question and disallowed answer is not reflected in any of the

challenged FOFs or COLs. The second one – concerning verbal

abuse by others – appears to be reflected in lines 2-5 of FOF

15.l. Although the Family Court clearly erred in finding that

Mother so testified, this was harmless error because Father is

the only person subject to the Order For Protection. The other

challenged findings are supported by Mother's above-referenced

testimony. See also Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 587A-21(a)

(2018) ("Any statement relating to an allegation of imminent

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

harm, harm, or threatened harm that a child has made to any

person shall be admissible as evidence.")

We conclude that Father's first point of error is

without merit.

(2) Father argues that the Family Court erred in

entering the Order For Protection because the court admitted

inadmissible hearsay statements contained within the Department

of Human Services (DHS) social workers' report for the truth of

the matter asserted therein. More specifically, Father asserts

that the testifying DHS social worker, CJ Ibarra (Ibarra), did

not offer testimony at trial regarding the statements made by

Child to Ibarra, but the statements that Child made to Ibarra

were included in the February 22, 2022 Confidential Report of

[DHS] (Report to Court), which was submitted to the court

pursuant to HRS § 586-10.5 (2018). 2

At trial, Ibarra testified that he completed an

investigation in this case. As part of that investigation, inter

alia, he spoke with Child. At the conclusion of that

2 HRS § 586-10.5 states:

§ 586-10.5 Reports by the department of human services; court responsibilities. In cases where there are allegations of domestic abuse involving a family or household member who is a minor or an incapacitated person as defined in section 560:5-102, the employee or appropriate nonjudicial agency designated by the family court to assist the petitioner shall report the matter to the department of human services, as required under chapters 350 and 587A, and further notify the department of the granting of the temporary restraining order and of the hearing date. The department of human services shall provide the family court with a written report on the disposition of the referral. The court shall file the report and mail it to the petitioner and respondent at least two working days before the hearing date, if possible. If circumstances prevent the mailing of the report as required in this section, the court shall provide copies of the report to the petitioner and respondent at the hearing. The report shall be noted in the order dismissing the petition or granting the restraining order.

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

investigation, Ibarra completed a report, along with the

disposition in that report, which was that physical abuse and

threat of abuse to Child by Father was confirmed. Ibarra

testified that he had nothing to add to the report and it

contained the disposition from DHS.

The Family Court determined that the Report to Court

complied with HRS § 586-10.5, and Father does not challenge that

determination on appeal. The Report to Court was completed

pursuant to the Family Court's January 12, 2022 Temporary

Restraining Order, which ordered DHS to investigate the matter,

submit a written report to the court, and have the investigating

social worker appear to testify. We conclude that the statements

made by Child to Ibarra, which were set forth in the Report to

Court, were admissible pursuant to HRS § 587A-21(a).

Accordingly, we conclude that Father's second point of error is

For these reasons, the Family Court's February 28, 2022

Order For Protection is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 5, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge Justin L. Sturdivant, Daniel E. Pollard, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka (Smith & Sturdivant, LLLC), Associate Judge for Respondent-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Pablo P. Quiban, Associate Judge for Petitioner-Appellee.