NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOS. 25957, 25958, 25959, and 25960
THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
THE INTEREST OF JANE DOE, Born on August 18, 1998, a Minor
(FC-S No. 02-08075)
THE INTEREST OF DOE CHILDREN:
JOHN, Born on July 23, 1985,
JANE, Born on April 3, 1988, and
JOHN, Born on February 2, 1994, Minors
(FC-S No. 96-04541)
THE INTEREST OF JOHN DOE, Born on October 22, 1996, a Minor
(FC-S No. 96-04536)
FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Burns, C.J., Watanabe and Foley, JJ.)
FC-S No. Child Date of Birth Appeal No.
July 23, 1985
Jane Doe April 3, 1988
John Doe February 2, 1994
96-04536 John Doe October 22, 1996 25959
02-08075 Jane Doe August 18, 1998 25957
In January 2002, the mother (Mother) of the Children left them with their adult half-brother. Mother did not want to care for the Children. The father (Father) of the Children was incarcerated.
All family court hearings were consolidated hearings. The trial was a consolidated trial. All documents subsequently referred to in this opinion were filed in each of the four family court cases.
On February 26, 2002, the State of Hawai`i Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition for temporary foster custody. On October 11, 2002, DHS filed a motion for permanent custody pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-61 (1993). On January 23, 2003, the court appointed an attorney for Father pursuant to HRS § 802-5 (1993).
On May 9, 2003, after a trial on May 7, 2003, the court (1) entered an Order Awarding Permanent Custody that divested Mother's and Father's parental and custodial duties and rights regarding the Children, appointed the State of Hawai`i Director of Human Services as permanent custodian of the Children, and ordered compliance with the May 5, 2003 Permanent Plan. The court also entered Letters of Permanent Custody.
On May 27, 2003, Father moved for reconsideration. On June 10, 2003, the court entered its Order Concerning Child Protective Act, denying Father's motion for reconsideration. On July 9, 2003, Father filed a notice of appeal. On July 31, 2003, the family court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FsOF and CsOL). This appeal was assigned to this court on March 17, 2004.
In this appeal, Father challenges various FsOF and CsOL. In essence, Father's appeal is based on his contention that "Father was not given a reasonable opportunity to reunify with the children."
Father does not challenge FOF no. 79 which states, in relevant part, that "Father tested positive for methamphetamine on February 3, 2003." Similarly, he does not challenge the following FsOF:
83. Father's lifestyle and
history show that he is unable to cooperate with DHS to reunify with
the [Children] and to provide a safe
family home for them.
. . . .
95. Father's testimony at
trial was not credible. Father did not take any responsibility for the
problems in his life or the problems
imposed upon his [Children]. Father desires to reunify with the [Children] because he needs them; Father does not have the
[Children's] best interest at heart.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the May 9, 2003 Order Awarding Permanent Custody and the May 9, 2003 Letters of Permanent Custody entered in each of the four family court cases listed above are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, March 9, 2005.
On the briefs:Kevin S. Adaniya,
Jay K. Goss, and
Mary Anne Magnier,
Deputy Attorneys General,
Honorable Marilyn Carlsmith presided.