NO. 29965
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
SHAWNA LEI CROOK, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE
MELVIN H. FUJINO, JUDGE OF FAMILY COURT
OF THE THIRD
CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, and
THOMAS W.
PACE, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(FC-P No.
08-1-108K)
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by
petitioner Shawna Lei Crook and the papers in
support, it appears that the "simultaneous proceedings" provision of
HRS chapter 583A (Uniform Child-Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)) did not apply to FC-P No.
08-1-108K inasmuch as: (1) HRS §§ 583A-206(a) and (b) (2006)
apply when a child-custody proceeding has been commenced "in a court of
another state having
jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the [UCCJEA]" and (2) the
child-custody proceeding commenced in
California in GF0022980 was not commenced in the subject child's home
state, such that the California court did not
have jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the UCCJEA. See HRS §§
583A-201(a)(1) and 583A-102. It further
appears that the lifting of the stay of FC-P No. 08-1-108K was within
the discretion of the respondent judge and the
lifting of the stay was not a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus
relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai‘i
200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of
mandamus 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. Where a court has
discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or
control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has acted
erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has
committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused
to act on
a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which it has
a legal
duty to act.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai‘i, August 7, 2009.