No "Disposition," No Order for Protection

By Benjamin Lowenthal -

 JD v. PD (ICA February 10, 2021)

Background. Mother filed a petition for order for protection against Father and alleged domestic abuse of Mother and child. The allegations went back to 2015. The family court, the Hon. Judge Natasha R. Shaw presiding, granted the petition and issued a temporary restraining order. The family court also ordered the Department of Human Services to investigate, submit a report, and appear at the hearing on the petition for an order of protection.

 

At the hearing, the family court accepted two reports prepared by a social worker at DHS. At the hearing both parties, the child’s former teacher, and the DHS social worker testified. The family court granted the petition and issued an order for protection for five years. The family court found that Mother proved the allegations in the petition. The family court prohibited Father from contacting Mother and child except under fully supervised visitation and as needed for court.

 

Father moved to amend or dissolve the order for protection. Father presented evidence that child welfare services investigated allegations of abuse and concluded that they were “not confirmed.” Father used this evidence as a basis to dissolve the order for protection. Father, however, appealed from the granting of the initial order for protection and the motion was denied for lack of jurisdiction.

 

DHS Reports, when Ordered, Need to have a “Disposition.” The ICA examined Father’s argument that the family court erred in admitting the DHS reports as “hearsay evidence.” Father presented his appeal pro se and the ICA started by examining applicable statutes first.

 

In cases where there are allegations of domestic abuse involving a family or household member who is a minor or an incapacitated person . . ., the employee or appropriate nonjudicial agency designated by the family court to assist the petitioner shall report the mater to the [DHS] . . . . The department of human services shall provide the family court with a written report on the disposition of the referral. The court shall file the report and mail it to the petitioner and respondent at least wto working days before the hearing date, if possible. If circumstances prevent the mailing of the report as required in this section, the court shall provide copies of the report to [the parties] at the hearing. The report shall be noted in the order dismissing the petition or granting the restraining order.

 

HRS § 586-10.5. According to the ICA, this statute requires DHS upon receiving a referral, to write a report on the “disposition of the referral” and turn it over to the parties and the court. The statute does not define the term “disposition.”

 

“Disposition” means the Final Result of the Investigation or Assessment of a Child Abuse Referral. In the absence of a statutory term, the ICA examined the statutes in pari materia. Jijun Yin v. Aguiar, 146 Hawai'i 254, 264, 463 P.3d 911, 921 (2020); HRS § 1-16. After surveying HRS Chapter 587A and relevant regulations pertaining to Child Welfare Services and finding no definition, the ICA turned to its plain meaning found in ordinary dictionaries. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Omiya, 142 Hawai'i 439, 449, 420 P.3d 370, 380 (2018). In the end, the ICA defined the term “disposition” to mean the “the result of the investigation or assessment that the Department conducted pursuant to its procedures for a child abuse referral.” Here, the DHS referrals were incomplete. Without the final result of the investigation, the family court erred in issuing the order for protection.

 

Editor’s Note. This is the first published opinion by the Judge Karen T. Nakasone.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judge accidentally strikes the entire expert opinion in a murder trial

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Sylva (HSC December 29, 2023) Background. Kumulipo Sylva was indicted for murder in the second degree after he was arrested for killing Eduardo Cerezo in the bathroom of the Queen Kaahumanu Shopping Center. Sylva raised the insanity defense and three examiners were appointed to determine penal responsibility. All three concluded that Sylva suffered from a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. Two out of the three believed he lacked capacity under the insanity defense was not criminally responsible.   At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Cerezo and Kyle Keoho got on the bus in Pukalani when they saw Sylva on the bus. Cerezo called Sylva a “pussy” and threatened to beat him up. When the bus got to the shopping center, the three of them got off and Sylva challenged Cerezo to a fight. Cerezo said he did not want to fight and Sylva walked away from them.   Cerezo and Keoho went to the bathroom together. Sylva also went into the bath...
Read more

If you're going to set bail, it has to be reasonable and can't be excessive so $3.3 million won't work

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Carter (ICA March 6, 2024) Background. Samuel Carter was indicted for attempted murder in the second degree and firearms offenses. He was held in jail without bail. About four months later, Carter filed a motion for supervised release or, in the alternative, a motion to set bail. Carter argued that there had been no findings supporting the decision to hold him without bail. The prosecution opposed and attached a letter to the Circuit Court noting that there had been no bail report because of the no-bail determination. According to the pretrial services intake center, it would not assess Carter’s eligibility for supervised release unless and until the court sets bail first.   At the hearing on the motion, Carter asked that bail be set at $100,000. The prosecution objected and argued that there was a rebuttable presumption of detention, Carter posed a danger to the community, and there was a flight risk. The prosecution did maintain that even though he could be...
Read more

HSC doesn’t wait for Rule 40 to find defense counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Yuen (HSC August 20, 2024) Background. Charles Tung Ming Yuen was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The charge arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred approximately fifty feet from the O’Malley Gate just outside of the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Honolulu. Two vehicles were approaching the gate when one of the vehicle rear-ended the one in front of it. Military police came onto the scene and identified Yuen as the driver of the vehicle that cause the collision. They seized him and subjected him to standardized field sobriety tests. Then they held him and called the Honolulu Police Department to report a “possible DUI outside the gate.”   The collision, seizure of Yuen, and their investigation occurred outside of the base within the City and County of Honolulu. The police showed up and took over. They conducted their investigation, saw signs of intoxication, and arrested Yuen.   Yuen’s lawyer, Barry Sooalo, di...
Read more