In re: DS

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: April 22, 2026
• Docket: SCPW-25-0000444
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 22-APR-2026 08:19 AM Dkt. 197 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________

IN RE DS ________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 3DV121000235)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS (By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Cahill, assigned by reason of vacancy)

A letter from Petitioner was filed on June 10, 2025. Based

on the record, we construe the letter as a petition for writ of

mandamus and deny the petition as moot because the Intermediate

Court of Appeals vacated the February 13, 2025 child custody

order in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.

As to the petition for extraordinary writ filed January 7,

2026, the family court’s post-divorce decree custody and

visitation orders are appealable. See Eaton v. Eaton, 7 Haw.

App. 111, 118–19, 748 P.2d 801, 805 (App. 1987). An

extraordinary writ proceeding is not an appeal and is not

intended to be used in lieu of normal appellate procedures. See Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319, 537

P.3d 1154, 1166 (2023). Also, Petitioner’s arguments in this

petition have not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to

relief. See id. It is ordered that the January 7, 2026

petition is denied.

Since the first petition was filed on June 10, 2025,

Petitioner filed many documents in this court that contain the

name of a minor child, in violation of Rules 2.19 and 9.1 of the

Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules (HCRR). An order was filed on August

26, 2025, that warned Petitioner against future violations of

HCRR Rules 2.19 and 9.1.

For example, rather than use the minor child’s name,

Petitioner may instead use the child’s initials or refer to the

child using general terms, such as “Child” or “Minor Child.”

See HCRR Rule 2.19. Petitioner correctly referred to the minor

child using general terms in some documents filed after the

August 26, 2025 order. But most of the numerous documents that

Petitioner filed after the August 26, 2025 order do not comply

with HCRR Rules 2.19 and 9.1 notwithstanding the warning issued

in the August 26, 2025 order. Based on this record, we find

that Petitioner has not shown a good faith attempt to comply

with HCRR Rules 2.19 and 9.1. See HCRR Rule 9.5. It is ordered

that all documents filed after the August 26, 2025 order and

2 contain the minor child’s name or other personal information of

the child, see HCRR Rule 2.19, are stricken from this record.

All remaining documents filed as motions and the petition

filed at docket 22 (redacted version at docket 73) are denied

without prejudice to consideration in other courts.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 22, 2026.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens

/s/ Peter T. Cahill