In re: J.F.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 29-MAY-2025 07:51 AM Dkt. 38 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN THE INTEREST OF J.F.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (CASE NO. FC-S 22-0002K)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka, and McCullen, JJ.)

Respondent-Appellant J.F. (Father) appeals from the

September 25, 2024 Order On Father's Motion To Protect His Due

Process Rights to an Adjudication Hearing and/or Motion to

Dismiss and/or Withdrawal of Agreement to Stipulated Order

(cleaned up) (Order re Motion to Protect) entered by the Family

Court of the Third Circuit (Family Court).1

On February 22, 2022, Petitioner-Appellee Department of

Human Services (DHS) filed a Petition for Foster Custody

concerning a teenage child (Child). Father requested an

adjudication hearing. The Family Court took evidence on three

hearing dates, but there were numerous continuances due to

unresolved discovery issues and motions. Before the adjudication

1 The Honorable Joanna E. Sokolow presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

hearing was completed, the parties notified the Family Court that

they had reached a settlement. On June 20, 2024, a stipulation

and order (Stipulated Order) was agreed to by DHS, Mother,

Father, the Guardian Ad Litem for Child, and Child, and approved

by the Family Court, and the adjudication hearing was terminated.

At that point, Child had been in foster custody for over two

years and was approaching the age of majority. The Stipulated

Order was an agreement to terminate a claim of abuse that

remained disputed, and included a determination that the termination of the Family Court's jurisdiction and the dismissal

of the case was in the best interest of Child.

On July 5, 2024, Father filed a Motion to Protect his

Due Process Rights to an Adjudication Hearing and/or Motion to

Dismiss and/or Withdrawal of Agreement to Stipulated Order

(Motion to Protect). In the Motion to Protect, Father sought to

withdraw his agreement to the Stipulated Order and to have a

hearing to dispute the confirmation of threat of abuse set forth

in DHS's February 22, 2022 Safe Family Home Report. The motion

was denied and Father filed a notice of appeal.

Although represented by counsel, Father's Opening Brief

is woefully noncompliant with Rule 11 of the Rules Expediting

Child Protective Appeals (RECPA). The Opening Brief does not

contain any references to the record on appeal or transcripts,

does not indicate where evidence in support of any asserted fact

is located in the record, and does not state points of error that

include reference to the part of the record where the alleged

error occurred and was preserved. RECPA Rule 11(a)(2),(3).

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

Nonetheless, we address Father's points of error to the extent we

are able to discern them.

Father raises two points of error on appeal, contending

that: (1) the Family Court erred in denying his motion to

withdraw a default when an initial temporary restraining order

(TRO) was entered against him; and (2) the Family Court and/or

DHS violated Father's due process rights.

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 Family Court erred in

denying a motion concerning a default with respect to a TRO. As

noted above, Father provides no record cites – or even filing

dates – for the purported default, TRO, or motion. It appears

that this argument may be in reference to another case or that

Father is otherwise misidentifying the challenged order. There

is no discernable support for Father's request for relief and we

conclude that the first point of error is without merit.

(2) Father argues that the Family Court and/or DHS

violated his due process rights by failing to ensure proper

notice of the threat of abuse findings by DHS, denying him a

meaningful opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and

allowing the maintenance of findings regarding "Child A, E and G"

after determining none of the children had ever been abused or

witnessed any abuse. It appears that DHS's petition for

temporary foster custody in this case only pertained to Child.

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

The Stipulated Order states that completion of the adjudication

hearing would require court hearings beyond Child reaching the

age of majority, and it was in the best interest of the Child to

terminate jurisdiction and dismiss the petition. Father points

to no evidence to the contrary.

Father argues that Hawai#i courts allow stipulated

orders to be set aside where there is a showing of mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. These arguments

were not made in the Motion to Protect, and are therefore

waived.2 See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)

28(b)(4); see also, e.g., Cnty. of Haw. v. C & J Coupe Fam. Ltd.

P'ship, 119 Hawai#i 352, 373, 198 P.3d 615, 636 (2008) ("As a

general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial,

that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal; this

rule applies in both criminal and civil cases.") (quoting State

v. Moses, 102 Hawai#i 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003)).

Upon review, it appears that Father's further

arguments, including his due process arguments, are raised for

the first time on appeal and are wholly without merit. Father

was represented by counsel from July 13, 2022, and the Stipulated

Order was entered on June 20, 2024, with Father present and

represented by counsel. The record reflects that, through

counsel, Father engaged in discovery and filed motions, including

motions filed after Father's adjudication hearing began, which

interrupted the adjudication hearing. There is no support for

2 Further, we note that the Motion to Protect was not supported by a declaration averring mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The Stipulated Order was not entered into by default.

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

Father's arguments that he did not receive due process. Father's

arguments do not support Father's request that the Order re

Motion to Protect be reversed. We conclude that the Family Court

did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motion to Protect.

For these reasons, the Family Court's September 25,

2024 Order re Motion to Protect is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 29, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge Susan Regeimbal, for Respondent-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge Kurt J. Shimamoto, Julio C. Herrera, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Ian T. Tsuda, Associate Judge Regina Anne M. Shimada, Deputy Attorneys General, Department of the Attorney General, for Petitioner-Appellee.