Hawai'i Legal News

  W.W. v. D.S. (HSC March 12, 2021) Background. In a bench trial before the family court, with the Hon. Judge Douglas Sameshima presiding, between Mother and Father, a heavily contest issue centered around custody and visitation rights for the parents. Father wanted overnight visits with his son. At trial, Father called the court-appointed custody evaluator as an expert witness. Court was adjourned for the lunch recess. When the parties returned in the afternoon, they told the family court they reached an agreement. Mother’s counsel recited the terms of the agreement with Father’s counsel and evaluator chiming in on certain points. The family court agreed and asked to reduce the terms to writing. Mother submitted written terms and Father filed a written objection. The family court adopted the agreement without acknowledging the objection. Counsel for the parties did not sign it.   Father filed a motion for reconsideration and argued that the terms did not reflect what w...

  In re: L.I. & H.D.K. (HSC March 11, 2021) Background. The Department of Human Service intervened between Mother and her child after Mother admitted to having a substance abuse problem during an interview with DHS. On June 13, 2014, DHS filed a petition for “Family Supervision.” Mother consented to the plan and agreed to a service plan requiring her to participate in a substance abuse assessment and recommended treatment, receive counseling, be responsible for her child, and cooperate with DHS. At a status hearing, the family court, with the Hon. Judge Keith E. Tanaka presiding, reviewed a DHS report detailing Mother’s inability to “manage her life” and care for her child. The family court revoked supervision and placed Mother’s child in foster care. The family court also ordered another service plan in which Mother agreed to participate in a psychological evaluation, substance abuse assessment and recommended treatment including submitting to random urine analysis, and mon...

  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...

  L.O. v. N.O. (HSC November 5, 2020) Background. Back in 2013, LO, the husband, was introduced online through a relative to NO, the wife, who had been living in Vietnam. LO was 45; NO was 22. NO’s aunt, who introduced them, paid for LO to fly to Vietnam and meet NO. Four months later, LO goes back to Vietnam and proposes to marry her. She accepted and came to the United States in 2014 on a K-1 fiancee visa, which allowed her 90 days to marry.   A month after arriving to the United States, the parties entered into a premarital agreement. The agreement released the parties in the event of a divorce of alimony and support obligations. It also provided that each spouse’s property upon entry into the marriage would be treated as separate property. It also stated that “it is the intention of the husband in the event that he sells his current residence . . . that any equity shall be used to finance another shared property with the wife and said equity will be considered shared ...

State v. Bright (HSC June 3, 2020) Background. Justin Bright was the respondent in a petition for an order for protection in the family court. He agreed to the order that prohibited him from having contact with the petitioner. The order specifically laid out what to do when he happened to come across the petitioner in public: R espondent is prohibited from coming or passing within 100 yards of any place of employment or where the petitioner lives and within 100 feet of each other at neutral locations. In the event the parties happen to come upon each other at a neutral location, the subsequent arriving party shall leave immediately or stay at least 100 feet from the other. When the parties happen to come upon each other at the same time at a neutral location, the Respondent shall leave immediately or stay at least 100 feet from the Petitioner. Do not violate this order even if the Petitioner invites you to be at the place of employment or where the other lives. The order did not...

In re PP (ICA April 30, 2014) Background. A minor was charged with terroristic threatening in the second degree. HRS § 707-717(1). He was accused of threatening by words or conduct to cause bodily injury to Jeffrey Kuewa in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing him. At trial before the family court, Kuewa testified that he is a counselor at a youth shelter in Haleiwa. He caught the minor smoking in his room and imposed and early bed time (EBT) at 7:00 p.m. Later that day, Kuewa discovered the minor had not finished his chores, was screaming, and was in an out-of-bounds area in the shelter. He gave him two more EBTs, but never told the minor. The next day, the minor approached Kuewa in an aggressive manner outside the shelter and glared at him. Kuewa told him the additional EBTs were based on going out of bounds and screaming. The minor told him he thought it was just for one day. Kuewa told him he was missing the point of an EBT and admitted he compared the minor a “little ...

In re TM (HSC January 6, 2014) Background. Mother had her child, TM, when she was fifteen years old. About a year later, mother was diagnosed with mental health issues. The Department of Human Services filed two petitions for foster care. One for the mother and the other for TM. At the initial hearing on both petitions, the family court addressed all of the parents and encouraged them to get counsel. If they could not afford counsel, the court would review an application and appoint one if they qualified. The family court then addressed Mother and said it would “find a person that can act” as both a guardian ad litem and a lawyer. Mother’s guardian appeared at subsequent hearings and told the family court that there may be a conflict of interest between what is in Mother’s best interest and what she wants to do about her child. No lawyer was appointed. For nearly two years, no lawyer was appointed. Finally, DHS moved to terminate Mother’s rights to TM. When Mother turned 18, he...

Hamilton v. Lethem (HSC February 2, 2012) Background. Lily Hamilton filed an ex parte petition for a temporary restraining order on behalf of her daughter, Amber. The TRO was filed against Christy Lethem, the father, and prohibited any contact with Amber. The TRO was granted. At the hearing, Amber testified about the three incidents. First, she testified that Lethem hit her because she lied to him. She said that he tried to hit her face, but she blocked him with her hand. In the second incident, Amber said that she started arguing with Lethem when he hit her. Amber went to her room and Lethem said, "Don’t make me do that again." As to the third incident, Amber testified that Lethem went to her school, pulled her out of class, and blamed her for financial problems. He also said that he was going to pull her out of school and that her younger sister was better than her. Lethem testified at the hearing. He admitted that he had had a strained relationship with Hamilton a...

Overruled Hamilton v. Lethem (ICA June 30, 2011) Background. Lily Hamilton filed a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Christy Lethem on behalf of their daughter, Amber. The TRO alleged three incidents in which Lethem physically assaulted Amber, threatened to physically assault her, and embarrassed her so badly that she suffered emotional distress. The TRO was granted and an evidentiary hearing was set. At the hearing, Amber testified about the three incidents. First, she testified that Lethem hit her because she lied to him. She said that he tried to hit her face, but she blocked him with her hand. In the second incident, Amber said that she started arguing with Lethem when he hit her. Amber went to her room and Lethem said, "Don’t make me do that again . . . . Don't make me hit you again." As to the third incident, Amber testified that Lethem went to her school, pulled her out of class, and blamed her for financial problems. He also said tha...