NOT
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
NO. 27936
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
In the Interest of B. CHILDREN:
C.A-A.B., C.L.B., E.B., G.A-L.B., F.B., and G.P.B.
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. 05-10592)
ORDER DISMISSING
MOTHER-APPELLANT'S APPEAL AND
ALLOWING FATHER-APPELLANT'S APPEAL
TO PROCEED
(By: Burns, C.J., Lim and Foley, JJ.)
Upon review of (1) Mother-Appellant's July 26, 2006 statement of
jurisdiction, (2) Father-Appellant's July 27, 2006 statement of
jurisdiction, and (3) the
record, it appears that we lack jurisdiction over Mother-Appellant's
appeal from the March 16, 2006 order that awarded
Petitioner-Appellee Department Human
Services (Appellee DHS) with foster custody over five of their minor
children. Under HRS § 571-54 (1993), "appeals in family court
cases, as in other civil
cases, may be taken only from (1) a final judgment, order, or
decree, . . . or (2) a certified interlocutory order." In re Doe, 96 Hawai‘i 272,
283, 30 P.3d 878,
889 (2001) (citations omitted). "By the plain language of the statute,
a party desiring to appeal from an order entered in a proceeding
governed by HRS § 571-54 is required to file a motion for
reconsideration." In re Doe
Children, 94 Hawai‘i 485, 486, 17 P.3d 217, 218 (2001). "Thus,
there is no appealable order until the family court resolves the motion
for reconsideration." Id.
Although
2006 Hawai‘i Sessions Laws Act 3 (Act 3) amended HRS § 571-54
by repealing the requirement for a motion for reconsideration under
these circumstances,
the family court entered the March 16, 2006 order before the July 1,
2006 effective date of Act 3, and, thus, the amendment under Act 3
does not apply to the
March 16, 2006 order. See
HRS § 1-3 (1993) ("No law has any retrospective operation,
unless otherwise expressed or obviously intended.").
Father-Appellant filed
an April 5, 2006 motion for reconsideration within twenty days after
entry of the March 16, 2006 order, as HRS § 571-54 (1993)
required, and, thus, the March 16, 2006 order was appealable for
Father-Appellant. However, Mother-Appellant did not file a motion for
reconsideration, and,
thus, Mother-Appellant failed to perfect her right to assert an appeal
under HRS § 571-54 (1993). Therefore, the March 16, 2006
order is not appealable by
Mother-Appellant. Absent an appealable order for Mother-Appellant, we
lack jurisdiction over Mother-Appellant's appeal. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Mother-Appellant's appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate
jurisdiction. The intermediate court of appeals has appellate
jurisdiction over Father-Appellant's appeal, and, thus,
Father-Appellant shall proceed with his appeal in this case.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai‘i, August 8, 2006.