In Interest of Ag

165 P.3d 1048
CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 12, 2007
Docket27637
StatusPublished

This text of 165 P.3d 1048 (In Interest of Ag) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Interest of Ag, 165 P.3d 1048 (hawapp 2007).

Opinion

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.

No. 27637.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii.

March 12, 2007.

On the briefs:

David G. Feldstein, Pro Se Stepfather-Appellant.

Susan B. Brandon and Mary Anne Magnier, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner-Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BURNS, C.J., WATANABE and NAKAMURA, JJ.

A.G. is a male child born in Uruguay on October 23, 1997. Appellant is not the biological father of A. G. Appellant married the mother (Mother) of A.G. on July 18, 2002. Therefore, Appellant is the stepfather (Stepfather) of A.G.

Stepfather appeals from the (1) September 30, 2005 (a) Order Awarding Permanent Custody and (b) Letters of Permanent Custody, and (2) November 3, 2005 Orders Concerning Child Protective Act entered in the Family Court of the First Circuit. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On January 2, 2003, A.G. was taken into protective custody by the police. The State of Hawaii Department of Human Services (DHS) commenced this Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 587 Child Protective Act case on January 7, 2003. Two days later, the court entered a stipulated order awarding DHS foster custody of A.G.

On November 5, 2004, DHS filed a Motion for Order Awarding Permanent Custody and Establishing a Permanent Plan. More than ten months later, on September 29 and 30, 2005, Judge William K. Wallace, III. presided over a trial. On September 30, 2005, Judge Wallace entered Orders Concerning Child Protective Act stating in part:

C DHS orally moved to dismiss Stepfather as a party, subject to recall if further reunification efforts were ordered after the trial on the Motion for Permanent Custody;
D The court finds that inasmuch as Stepfather is neither the legal or natural father of the child, he is not a necessary party to the contested permanent plan hearing (trial on the Motion for Permanent Custody);
E The court finds that Stepfather's past participation in the permanent plan and related proceedings has contributed to the delay in the disposition of the DHS Motion for Permanent Custody filed November 5, 2004, and the court will exercise its discretion in favor of the DHS request for dismissal;
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
. . . .
2 The DHS motion to dismiss Stepfather as a party subject to recall is granted. Stepfather is excused from today's and all future proceedings unless summoned to appear.

On September 30, 2005, Judge Wallace entered the Order Awarding Permanent Custody[1] which terminated Mother's parental and custodial duties and rights with respect to A.G. and ordered a permanent plan into effect.

On October 13, 2005, Stepfather filed a motion for reconsideration. This motion was denied by the November 3, 2005 Orders Concerning Child Protective Act.

On December 5, 2005, Stepfather filed a notice of appeal. On December 28, 2005, Judge Wallace entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FsOF and CsOL). The FsOF state in part:

20. At the outset of the September 29, 2005 proceedings, the court granted the DHS oral motion to dismiss Stepfather as a party, subject to recall if further reunification efforts were ordered after trial, because he has [sic] is neither the legal nor natural father of the child and is therefore not a necessary party . . . to the contested permanent plan hearing, and because Stepfather's past participation in the proceedings contributed to the delay in the disposition of the DHS Motion for Order Awarding Permanent Custody and Establishing a Permanent Plan, filed November 5, 2004.
. . . .
25. On September 30, 2005, testimony was received from Stepfather . . . , Mother . . . , and the GAL, . . .
29. Stepfather filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration of the September 29 and 30, 2005 orders on October 13, 2005, which did not offer any new evidence or argument.
POINT ON APPEAL

In his opening brief, Stepfather contends:

Never did CPS or the Family Court address Stepfather's rights under the Local Paternal doctrine and the removal of those rights. The Loco Paternal doctrine gave Stepfather parental rights and this court did nothing to remove them. QUESTION? Does Stepfather still have parental rights with the child [A.G.]?

(Quoted as appears in original.)

DISCUSSION

The Hawaii Supreme Court has stated:

Hawaii's statutory scheme facilitating the termination of parental rights [i.e., Part VI of HRS chapter 571] initially takes parents' rights and interests into account before turning to the child's. In the case of involuntary termination, it is only after the parents have demonstrated some form of "unfitness" as defined by the legislature in HRS § 571-61(b) that the state intervenes as parens patriae and considers the best interests of the child. The statute thus gives proper regard to the rights of parents before allowing termination, consistent with due process principles.

Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85, 99, 637 P.2d 760, 769 (1981).

This court has stated:

A child's stepparent is not the child's parent. A child's stepparent who has not been lawfully appointed as the guardian of the child's person by the family court pursuant to HRS § 551-1 (1985) is not the child's guardian. The status of being a child's stepparent does not confer any legal rights upon the stepparent with respect to the child. HRS § 577-4 (1985) requires a stepparent to support the stepparent's stepchild only when: (1) the child resides with the stepparent; (2) the legal parents desert the child or are unable to support the child, thereby reducing the child to destitute and necessitous circumstances; and (3) the stepparent acts in loco parentis to the child. Stepparents have no rights with respect to the involuntary termination of parental rights, HRS § 571-61(b) (1985), or adoptions. HRS § 578-2 (Supp.1992).

State v. Alagao, 77 Hawaii 260, 263, 883 P.2d 682, 685 (App. 1994).

Although a stepparent has no parental rights, a stepparent has various statutory rights and obligations to be involved in court proceedings pertaining to his or her stepchild depending on the subject of the court proceedings.[2]

HRS § 587-32(a) requires the court, after a Child Protective Act petition has been filed, to "issue a summons requiring a child's family member or members who have legal or physical custody of the child at the time of the filing of the petition to bring the child before the court at the temporary foster custody hearing or on the return date set forth in the summons." HRS § 587-2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Woodruff v. Keale
637 P.2d 760 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1981)
State v. Alagao
883 P.2d 682 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 P.3d 1048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-interest-of-ag-hawapp-2007.