NO. 29831
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
JONEA SCHILLACI-LAVERGNE, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE
CALVIN K. MURASHIGE, JUDGE OF THE FAMILY
COURT OF THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(UCCJEA NO.
07-1-0003)
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and
prohibition filed by petitioner Jonea Schillaci-Lavergne and
the papers in support, it appears that the question of judicial
disqualification is reviewable
on appeal from a final order ending the custody modification proceeding
in UCCJEA
No. 07-1-0003. Petitioner can appeal from a final order pursuant to HRS
§§ 571-54
(2006) and 641-1(a) (Supp. 2008). Consequently, petitioner's case is
not one in
which the question of disqualification cannot otherwise be reviewed and
immediate
review by way of mandamus and/or prohibition is not warranted. See Peters v. Jamieson,
48 Haw. 247, 257, 397 P.2d 575, 582 (1964) ("[A] writ of prohibition
will lie to compel a trial judge to recuse him [ ] or
[her]self because of bias or prejudice which appears from the record,
where . . . the case is one in which the question of
disqualification cannot otherwise be reviewed.").
It further appears that the matters concerning expert evaluations,
discovery, and proof required for custody modification are reviewable
on
appeal from a final order ending the custody modification proceeding in
UCCJEA No.
07-1-0003. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary
relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai‘i
200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of
mandamus and/or prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will not
issue unless
the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief
and a lack of
alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the
requested
action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal
discretionary
authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal
remedies in
lieu of normal appellate procedures.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition is
denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai‘i, June 3, 2009.