K.K. v. R.K.

154 Haw. 46

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 8, 2024
• Docket: CAAP-22-0000494
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 08-MAR-2024 09:44 AM Dkt. 92 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

K.K., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.K., Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 3UJ211000002)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant K.K. (father)

appeals from the Order Upon Hearing of February 22, 2022

(Dismissal Order) entered by the Family Court of the Third

Circuit (family court) on May 3, 2022.1

Father raises nine points of error on appeal. Upon

careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the

1 The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments

advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we address

father's points of error as follows:2

(1) Father's jurisdictional arguments, raised in

points of error 4, 5, 8, and 9, lack merit. "A family court's

decision to decline jurisdiction is reviewed for abuse of

discretion." NB v. GA, 133 Hawaiʻi 436, 444, 329 P.3d 341, 349

(App. 2014) (citation omitted). From what we are able to

discern, father contends that the family court erred in:

"failing to assert jurisdiction because a significant connection

existed between [father], the [child], and Hawaiʻi, and no other

grounds existed for the family court to relinquish jurisdiction

to the New Hampshire Court"; "failing to consider that an

emergency jurisdiction matter should have existed rather than

permitting New Hampshire to establish jurisdiction with

[Defendant-Appellee R.K.'s (mother)] fraudulent and unfounded

claims of abuse"; "finding that New Hampshire would be a more

convenient forum"; and "refusing to allow [father] to testify

2 At the outset, we note that father's opening brief does not meet the requirements of Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b). Among other things, it fails to cite appropriately to both the record and legal authority. Given father's self-represented status, we will address his arguments on appeal to the extent that they can reasonably be discerned. Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 126 Hawaiʻi 190, 193, 268 P.3d 443, 446 (App. 2011).

We further note that father's opening brief sets forth a total of nine points of error, including two that are both numbered as point of error (3). We have renumbered father's points of error for clarity.

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

regarding matters relevant to whether New Hampshire was an

inconvenient forum."

As the record reflects, mother and child moved from

Hawaiʻi to New Hampshire in September 2021, and established

residency in New Hampshire. Father and mother mutually agreed

to dismiss all of their pending Hawaiʻi family court cases; the

family court dismissed these cases between February and May

2022.3 Father subsequently filed a complaint for divorce, in

June 2022, which was docketed as 3FDV-XX-XXXXXXX. Mother moved

to dismiss 3FDV-XX-XXXXXXX. Mother contended that New Hampshire

had jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the Uniform Child

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because, at

the time father filed his complaint in 3FDV-XX-XXXXXXX, she and

child had been residing in New Hampshire for more than six

months. The family court granted mother's motion to dismiss,

after taking judicial notice of the New Hampshire, Merrimack

County family court's Order on Jurisdiction in Case No. 637-

2022-DM-00095, dated November 15, 2022. The New Hampshire

family court asserted jurisdiction over the matter, based on its

3 The family court dismissed the following cases that were pending before it, based on the parties' mutual agreement: 1. 3UJ211000002, petition for custody filed by father in September 2021; 2. 3DA211000521, petition for temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by father in September 2021; 3. 3DV211000230, complaint for divorce filed by mother in October 2021; and 4. 3DA2210000125, second petition for TRO filed by father in March 2022. 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

finding that "[the child] has resided continuously in the State

of New Hampshire for more than one year making New Hampshire the

only state permitted to make an initial child custody

determination under the UCCJEA."

We conclude, on this record, that the family court did

not err in declining jurisdiction over this matter.

(2) Father's contentions, raised in points of error 1,

6, and 7, lack merit. "Generally, the family court possesses

wide discretion in making its decisions and those decisions will

not be set aside unless there is a manifest abuse of

discretion." In re Doe, 95 Hawaiʻi 183, 189, 20 P.3d 616, 622

(2001) (cleaned up). Father contends on appeal that the family

court erred in: "implementing Federal UCCJEA enforcement

measures regarding the [child's] parental abduction from the

State of Hawaii"; "failing to consider that [father] had not

signed the stipulation [dated] 05/06/2022" and "dismiss[ing] the

UCCJEA absent (ex parte) the presence of the petitioner"; and

"failing to take into account a violation by [mother] of the

'Clean Hands' section of the 1997 [UCCJEA][.]"

The record reflects that the family court dismissed

the UCCJEA case after the parties informed the family court, on

the record, that they had mutually agreed to dismiss the pending

Hawaiʻi divorce and custody cases and would be taking part in

mediation. See supra note 3. Father points to no evidence or

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

authority to support his contention, in his opening brief, that

he signed the stipulation to dismiss the cases "under coercion

or duress[.]" Based on the parties' agreement to dismiss the

Hawaiʻi family court cases, the family court did not address

father's UCCJEA claims, nor did it take any "enforcement

measures" pursuant to the UCCJEA. The family court did not

abuse its discretion in its actions in this regard.

(3) Father's contentions that the family court abused

its discretion, as set forth in points of error 2 and 3, lack

merit. Father contends that the family court abused its

discretion: "by not allowing any type of evidence or procedure

to be pursued substantively or materially" with regard to his

April 2022 Motion for Return of Minor Child to the State of

Hawaiʻi; and in denying his motion to "remove [opposing

counsel's] firm from all matters due to a conflict of

interest[.]"

With regard to point of error 2, the record reflects

that the family court had dismissed all of the parties' pending

cases, pursuant to the parties' mutual agreement, prior to any

evidentiary hearing being held on father's April 2022 motion.

Moreover, with regard to point of error 3, the record reflects

that father had agreed to dismiss the pending family court cases

prior to filing his Motion to Remove Counsel. Father's

contentions thus lack merit.

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

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the family

court's dismissal order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 8, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth K.K., self-represented, Presiding Judge Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen William Dean, Associate Judge for Defendant-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge