In re: QH ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    10-NOV-2022
    12:18 PM
    Dkt. 68 SO
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    IN THE INTEREST OF QH
    APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    (FC-S NO. 19-00164)
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By: Ginoza, C.J., and Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)
    Appellant Father (Father) appeals from the Order
    Terminating Parental Rights, entered on April 4, 2022, in the
    Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court).1/ Father
    appears to contend that the Family Court erred in finding that
    Father would not be able to provide a safe family home for his
    daughter (QH)2/ within a reasonable period of time.3/ Father also
    challenges findings of fact (FOFs) 57, 79, 90, 91, and 92, in the
    Family Court's May 12, 2002 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
    Law.
    1/
    The Honorable Andrew T. Park presided.
    2/
    At the time of trial in March 2022, QH was two years and eight
    months old and had entered foster custody ten days after birth.
    3/
    Father's opening brief fails to comply in material respects with
    Rules Expediting Child Protective Appeals Rule 11(a)(3) and Hawai #i Rules of
    Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4) and (7). For example, the brief does not
    state how the Family Court erred and does not present any argument regarding
    the challenged FOFs. Nevertheless, we have "consistently adhered to the
    policy of affording litigants the opportunity 'to have their cases heard on
    the merits, where possible.'" Morgan v. Planning Dep't Cty. of Kauai, 104
    Hawai#i 173, 180-81, 
    86 P.3d 982
    , 989-90 (2004) (quoting O'Connor v. Diocese
    of Honolulu, 77 Hawai#i 383, 386, 
    885 P.2d 361
    , 364 (1994)). We thus address
    Father's arguments to the extent discernible.
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    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 by the parties, we
    resolve Father's points of error as follows and affirm.
    I.
    We review Father's challenges to the Family Court's
    FOFs for clear error. In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i 183, 190, 
    20 P.3d 616
    , 623 (2001).
    A FOF "is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks
    substantial evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite
    substantial evidence in support of the finding, the
    appellate court is nonetheless left with a definite and firm
    conviction that a mistake has been made." "'Substantial
    evidence' is credible evidence which is of sufficient
    quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable
    caution to support a conclusion. "
    
    Id.
     (citations and ellipsis omitted). Unchallenged findings of
    fact are binding on appeal. In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i 522, 538, 
    57 P.3d 447
    , 463 (2002) (quoting Poe v. Haw. Labor Rels. Bd., 97
    Hawai#i 528, 536, 
    40 P.3d 930
    , 938 (2002)).
    We likewise review conclusions of law that present
    mixed questions of fact and law for clear error. See In re JM,
    150 Hawai#i 125, 137, 
    497 P.3d 140
    , 152 (App. 2021).
    Accordingly:
    [T]he family court's determinations . . . with respect to
    (1) whether a child's parent is willing and able to provide
    a safe family home for the child and (2) whether it is
    reasonably foreseeable that a child's parent will become
    willing and able to provide a safe family home within a
    reasonable period of time present mixed questions of law and
    fact; . . . they are reviewed on appeal under the clearly
    erroneous standard. Likewise, the family court's
    determination of what is or is not in a child's best
    interests is reviewed on appeal for clear error.
    Moreover, the family court is given much leeway in its
    examination of the reports concerning a child's care,
    custody, and welfare, and its conclusions in this regard, if
    supported by the record and not clearly erroneous, must
    stand on appeal.
    
    Id.
     (quoting Doe, 95 Hawai#i at 190, 
    20 P.3d at 623
    ).
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    II.
    Father contests FOFs 57, 79, and 90-92.              Each is
    addressed below.
    A.   FOF 57
    FOF 57 states:
    Father never completely acquired the basic parenting
    skills that would keep a child safe. Since the beginning of
    this case, Father could not grasp all of a baby's needs like
    feeding, consoling, or age-appropriate milestones.
    FOF 57 is supported by FOFs 61, 65-78, and 80-83, which
    are unchallenged and thus binding on appeal. Specifically, these
    unchallenged FOFs provide examples of Father's failures to
    acquire basic parenting skills, which include: numerous no-shows
    to visitations with QH, failure to bring QH diapers, snacks, and
    drinks during visits, and twice leaving QH unsupervised at a
    playground.
    FOF 57 is also supported by the following testimony of
    Department of Human Services (DHS) social worker Bruce Wallace
    (Wallace):
    Q.    So given all of these services and education
    given to [Father] . . . why do you still have concerns about
    his parenting as a safety issue?
    A.    Well, just the recent incidents and also the
    reports that I have discussed with Dr. Choy, that department
    is -- already has exhausted everything that we could give
    [Father].
    Q.    Then given this -- the time that's elapsed and
    the services provided, what were your expectations of a
    parent who could provide a safe family home at this point?
    A.    That he would be a parent that asked questions
    about his daughter, that innate ability that . . . drives
    parents to, one, to understand their child's daily life;
    about what is school like; what . . . time does she go to
    bed; what is her sleep patterns; what is -- she like to do;
    who are her friends; what she likes, what she dislikes.
    These are the things that -- innate ability that [Father]
    does not possess of being a parent.
    Thus, the record contains substantial evidence from
    which a reasonable factfinder could have found it highly probable
    that FOF 57 was true. See In re JK, 149 Hawai#i 400, 409-10, 
    491 P.3d 1179
    , 1188-89 (App. 2021).
    3
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    B.   FOF 79
    FOF 79 states:
    On March 21, 2022, Father gave [QH] two little balls
    during a [Parent-Child Interactive Therapy ( PCIT)] session
    against the therapist's advice. [QH] put the balls in her
    mouth and almost choked on them. Fortunately, the resource
    caregiver noticed [QH]'s distress and intervened.
    FOF 79 is supported by substantial evidence in the
    record. Specifically, at trial, Wallace testified that the
    resource caregiver had reported this incident to him, and that he
    (Wallace) had discussed the incident with Father and PCIT staff.
    Additionally, Dr. Choy testified that the choking incident
    occurred in his office; Dr. Choy's staff told Father not to give
    QH anything small that she could choke on; QH got two small
    objects from the toy box in the office; and Dr. Choy's staff took
    away the objects and made it clear to Father that QH should not
    have the small objects on her own. Father also admitted giving
    the two balls to QH and that he should not have done it.
    Thus, the record contains substantial evidence from
    which a reasonable factfinder could have found it highly probable
    that FOF 79 was true. See JK, 149 Hawai#i at 409-10, 491 P.3d at
    1188-89.
    C.   FOFs 90-92
    FOFs 90-92 state:
    90. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
    case, the DHS has exerted reasonable and active efforts to
    avoid foster placement of [QH] and she has been in the same
    placement since she was released from the hospital.
    91. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
    case, the DHS has exerted reasonable and active efforts to
    reunify the Child with [Father] and [Mother] by identifying
    necessary, appropriate, and reasonable services to address
    their identified safety issues, and making the appropriate
    and timely referrals for these services.
    92. Under the circumstances presented by the instant
    case, the DHS gave Parents every reasonable opportunity to
    succeed in remedying the problems which subjected the Child
    to substantial risk of being harmed in the family home, and
    to reunify with the Child. The DHS actively encouraged
    [Father] and [Mother] to participate in necessary and
    reasonable services to allow them to reunify with the child.
    4
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    FOFs 90-92 are also supported by substantial evidence
    in the record. Specifically, Father does not contest FOFs 93 and
    94, which state:
    93. Each of the service plans offered by the DHS and
    ordered by the court were fair, appropriate, and
    comprehensive.
    94. None of the underlying facts and data upon which
    the DHS based its opinions, assessments, and recommendations
    was shown to be untrustworthy. The DHS' continuing
    assessment in this case was conducted in an appropriate
    manner.
    FOFs 90-92 are also supported by Wallace's trial
    testimony. Wallace testified as follows regarding DHS's efforts
    to reunify QH and Father:
    Q.    What types of services has [the] department put
    into place to address [parenting] issues?
    A.    Sure. At . . . the    beginning of the case we
    have hands-on parenting. We've    referred him to hands-on
    parenting, Strong Families Home   Visiting. He was doing
    that. He was inconsistent with    that and they closed him
    out.
    Also, he had the opportunity to do the ABC
    Program, which is evidence-based program, which he did not
    -- he was inconsistent with that and he was closed out of
    that.
    We also did parenting education with
    [Comprehensive Counseling and Support Services], with
    Parents Inc. He did complete that.
    We also did another hands-on parenting with
    Catholic Charities. We did that. And also we -- right now
    currently we are doing PCIT.
    Wallace further testified that DHS had exhausted all of its
    services that would help Father resolve safety issues; Father had
    not shown any improvement on these issues; Father was still not
    providing for all of QH's needs during their visits; and, because
    of Father's inconsistency, Wallace was concerned that Father "may
    forget her at some place, maybe at school[.]" Wallace also
    expressed concern that:
    [Father] doesn't know his child. He has never asked
    about her schooling, . . . her schooling schedule, her sleep
    time, her -- what's it like to be at the resource
    caregiver's home, who she plays with. That drive that wants
    to know everything about your child, or everything that's --
    might be wrong about . . . what we're doing wrong, or
    anything that he has concerns about during, say, if she went
    5
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    to a water park and he didn't know about it or something
    like that. Or disagreed with something. He . . . has never
    asked us anything about that.
    Thus, the record contains substantial evidence from
    which a reasonable factfinder could have found it highly probable
    that FOFs 90-92 were true. See JK, 149 Hawai#i at 409-10, 491
    P.3d at 1188-89.
    III.
    Father's primary contention appears to be that the
    Family Court erred in determining that he would not be able to
    provide a safe family home for QH within a reasonable period of
    time.
    HRS § 587A-33(a) (2018) provides, in relevant part:
    (a) At a termination of parental rights hearing, the court
    shall determine whether there exists clear and convincing
    evidence that:
    (1)   A child's parent whose rights are subject to
    termination is not presently willing and able to
    provide the parent's child with a safe family
    home, even with the assistance of a service
    plan; [and]
    (2)   It is not reasonably foreseeable that the
    child's parent whose rights are subject to
    termination will become willing and able to
    provide the child with a safe family home, even
    with the assistance of a service plan, within a
    reasonable period of time, which shall not
    exceed two years from the child's date of entry
    into foster care[.]
    HRS § 587A-7(a) (2018) sets forth numerous factors that the
    Family Court must consider "when determining whether a child's
    family is willing and able to provide the child with a safe
    family home[.]"
    Here, the Family Court entered extensive findings of
    fact related to Father's willingness and ability to provide QH a
    safe family home. The FOFs describe, among other things, QH's
    age and vulnerability; the reports of harm and threatened harm to
    QH; the results of Father's psychological evaluation; Father's
    failure to completely acquire the basic parenting skills to keep
    a young child safe; Father's inconsistency in demonstrating an
    understanding of and involvement in services recommended by DHS
    as necessary to provide QH with a safe family home; Father's
    6
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    failure to resolve safety issues within a reasonable period of
    time; and DHS's assessment of Father's ability to provide QH with
    a safe family home. In addition, uncontested witness testimony
    established that DHS provided Father with reasonable
    opportunities to demonstrate his ability to provide a safe family
    home for QH, but Father inconsistently participated in
    visitations with QH (missing at least thirty-one scheduled
    visits), family training courses, and psychiatric sessions, which
    ultimately led DHS to seek to terminate Father's parental rights.
    Based on the entire record, we conclude that the Family
    Court did not clearly err in determining that Father was not
    presently willing and able to provide QH with a safe family home,
    even with the assistance of a service plan.
    IV.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Order Terminating
    Parental Rights, entered on April 4, 2022, in the Family Court of
    the First Circuit, is affirmed.
    DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 10, 2022.
    On the briefs:
    /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
    Herbert Y. Hamada                     Chief Judge
    for Father-Appellant.
    Gay M. Tanaka and                     /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
    Julio C. Herrera,                     Associate Judge
    Deputy Attorneys General,
    for Petitioner-Appellee.
    /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
    Associate Judge
    7