In Re: K.R.

153 Haw. 582

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 15, 2024
• Docket: CAAP-23-0000054
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 15-FEB-2024 08:01 AM Dkt. 71 SO

NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTEREST OF K.R. (FC-S NO. 19-00183)

AND

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTEREST OF C.R. (FC-S NO. 20-00094)

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

In this consolidated appeal, Father-Appellant (Father)

appeals from the Family Court of the First Circuit's January 25,

2023 orders terminating parental rights. 1 On appeal, Father

1 The Honorable Jessi L.K. Hall entered the Orders and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

asserts insufficiency of the evidence and a due process

violation. 2

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we

resolve Father's arguments below, and affirm.

(1) In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence,

Father argues that the family court must "find that reasonable

efforts where [sic] provided" in order to terminate his parental

rights. To that point, Father maintains the Department of Human

Services (DHS) did not inquire if the prison offered services,

failed to arrange visits with the children, and did not do

enough regarding his domestic violence, substance abuse, and

mental health issues.

"DHS is under an obligation to provide a reasonable

opportunity to parents through a service plan to reunify the

family." In re Doe, 100 Hawai‘i 335, 343, 60 P.3d 285, 293

(2002). But "DHS is not required to provide services beyond

what [is] available within the correction system." In re B.K.,

149 Hawai‘i 172, 484 P.3d 185, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2021 WL

1250384 at *3 (App. Apr. 5, 2021) (SDO). Moreover, unchallenged

2 In his points of error, Father identifies Findings of Fact numbers 63, 102, 125, 126, 130, 131, 132, 140, 141, and 142, and Conclusions of Law numbers 17, 18, and 19, as "erroneously found." Rather than addressing these findings and conclusions individually in the argument section of his brief, Father appears to challenge them in the context of the points raised on appeal. We address the challenged findings and conclusion in a likewise manner.

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

findings are binding on this court and this "court will not pass

upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the

weight of the evidence[.]" In re Doe, 95 Hawai‘i 183, 190, 20

P.3d 616, 623 (2001) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted).

Here, Father's social worker testified he offered to

refer Father to anger management and domestic violence classes,

and referred Father to domestic violence classes and parenting

education classes, which Father did not complete. Father's

social worker testified that he discussed with Father about

starting supervised visits with his children, K.R. and C.R., and

offered supervised visits with K.R. The resource caregivers

similarly testified Father was offered visits with his children.

And per Father's own testimony, he quit the last three substance

abuse programs he was enrolled in.

Because the family court found the social worker's and

resource caregivers' testimonies credible and the above findings

were not challenged, there was sufficient evidence to show

Father was provided reasonable opportunities to receive services

and visit his children.

(2) Father contends the family court "made an error

in discharging [his] court-appointed counsel for 8-9 months,

violating his due process rights under the Constitution, and

failing to provide a fundamentally fair process." Father argues

his absence was not voluntary because he was incarcerated.

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

"The right to counsel is not automatically violated

when a beneficiary of that right voluntarily absents themselves

from the family court proceedings." In re J.H., 152 Hawai‘i 373,

379, 526 P.3d 350, 356 (2023). Moreover, "[t]here is no

violation of a parent's due process right to counsel when a

family court discharges and later reappoints counsel, and the

case, viewed in its entire context, establishes that the parent

received a fundamentally fair trial . . . ." Id. 152 Hawaiʻi at

381, 526 P.3d at 358.

Due to missing multiple hearings, Father's court-

appointed attorney was discharged in K.R.'s case on November 30,

2020 and in C.R.'s case on December 29, 2020. In his opening

brief, Father notes he "testified he had been incarcerated since

2019-2020" citing to "T of 01/23/23 p.108." There, Father's

testimony was, "[s]o I've . . . been incarcerated since 2020.

'19, 2019, not too sure. 2020 I think I've been locked up . . .

I've been in and out, but then mostly been locked up,

incarcerated." This testimony, however, does not establish that

Father's failure to appear was not voluntary.

Moreover, after the sixth day of trial in K.R.'s case,

Father appeared with newly-appointed counsel on July 1, 2021 for

a periodic review in C.R.'s case. The family court then set

aside the trial in K.R.'s case and reset trial to be held

jointly with C.R.'s case. Since then, Father and his newly-

4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

appointed counsel participated in the hearings, mediation, and

consolidated trial that followed. Thus, viewing these cases in

their entire context, Father had a "meaningful opportunity to

participate in [his] case with the aid of counsel." In re J.H.,

152 Hawai‘i at 381, 526 P.3d at 358.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the family court's

January 25, 2023 orders terminating parental rights.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 15, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge Tae Chin Kim, for Father-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Simeona A. Mariano, Associate Judge Julio C. Herrera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner-Appellee.