Parent's Right to Counsel Triggered when DHS Files for Family Supervision

By Benjamin Lowenthal -

 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 monthly contact with a social worker. Counsel for Mother was not appointed until April 14, 2015—about ten months after the filing of the first petition and 97 days after DHS filed for temporary custody.

 

Mother’s second child, H.D.K., was born two months later. The child tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. DHS filed another petition for temporary foster custody over H.D.K.  Mother failed to comply with her service plans. DHS filed a motion to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The family court granted the motion. Mother appealed and argued that counsel should have been appointed sooner. The ICA affirmed. Mother petitioned to the HSC.

 

The Hawai'i Due Process Clause Mandates Right to Counsel for Indigent Parents when DHS Files for Family Supervision. “[P]arents have a constitutional right to counsel under article I, section 5 in parental termination proceedings and . . . courts must appoint counsel for indigent parents once DHS files a petition to assert foster custody over a child.” In re TM, 131 Hawai'i 419, 421, 319 P.3d 338, 340 (2014). When DHS files for custody, parental rights are “‘substantially affected.’ At that point, an attorney is essential to protect an indigent parent’s liberty interest in the care, custody and control of his or her children.” Id. at 435, 319 P.3d at 354. However, the HSC in In re TM also states that counsel must be appointed “upon the granting of a petition” for temporary custody.” Id. at 436, 319 P.3d at 355.

 

Here, there was a 97-day delay between the appointment of counsel and the DHS’s petition for temporary foster custody over L.I. The HSC took this case to clarify one of the ambiguities in In re: TM. The HSC explained that counsel must be appointed “when DHS files a petition for family supervision because, at that point, parental rights are substantially affected as foster custody can be ordered by the court at a subsequent hearing.”

 

Failing to Appoint Counsel upon Filing for Family Supervision is Structural Error. The HSC further held that the failure to appoint counsel for the indigent upon the filing for family supervision is structural error and requires vacating the lower court without examining whether the error is harmless. State v. Loher, 140 Hawai'i 205, 222, 398 P.3d 794, 811 (2017). Parents have a “substantive liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children that is protected by the due process clause” in the Hawaii Constitution. In re: TM, 131 Hawai'i at 421, 319 P.3d at 340. That liberty interest guarantees counsel for parents. Id. at 435, 319 P.3d at 354. And so, the HSC vacated the termination of parental rights order and remanded the case to the family court.

Comments

Unknown said…
They violated my rights. I suffer from mental anguish from being in their process

June 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM
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