In re: F.G.

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: May 30, 2025
• Docket: SCWC-24-0000715
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 30-MAY-2025 12:30 PM Dkt. 3 OGAC

SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

IN THE INTEREST OF F.G.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; FC-S NO. 23-00093)

ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Mother-Appellant’s Notice of

Intent to File Application for Writ of Certiorari (Notice),

filed on May 22, 2025, the record herein, and to preserve her

constitutional right to court-appointed counsel in this parental

rights termination proceeding, we construe Mother-Appellant’s

Notice as an Application for Writ of Certiorari. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Mother-Appellant’s Application for Writ of

Certiorari is accepted.

2. This case is temporarily remanded to the Family

Court of the First Circuit for the appointment of counsel for

Mother-Appellant. 4. Within seven business days of the entry of this

order, the family court shall issue an order appointing counsel.

5. A supplemental record containing all documents

filed during the period of temporary remand shall be transmitted

to this court within five business days after the filing of the

family court’s appointment of counsel.

6. After remand is complete, this court will issue a

briefing schedule for all parties.

7. The appellate clerk shall transmit a copy of this

order to the Family Court of the First Circuit for filing in

FC-S No. 23-00093.

We further note that the family court attempted to

address this situation while the case was pending in the

Intermediate Court of Appeals, by filing a “Request for Temporary

Remand” (“Request”) on May 15, 2025. The ICA construed that

filing as a “motion” made on behalf of Mother-Appellant and

suggested that such action was not authorized by the Revised Code

of Judicial Conduct. We respectfully, but strongly, disagree.

As reflected by the family court’s thoughtful

explanation in the “Request”, the family court was bringing a

potential violation of Mother-Appellant’s constitutional rights

to the attention of the appellate court. As emphasized by Rule

2.6(a) of the Revised Code of Judicial Conduct, “[a] judge shall

accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding,

2 or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.”

Inaction by the family court in these circumstances would have

countenanced a denial of Mother-Appellant’s rights. Thus, the

“Request” was fully consistent with the family court’s obligation

under the Code.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 30, 2025.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens