Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: L Children

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: CAAP-24-0000847

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (15.3K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
18-MAR-2026
07:50 AM
Dkt. 90 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN THE INTEREST OF L CHILDREN

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(FC-S NO. 21-0005)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, and Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

Mother-Appellant (Mother) appeals from the Order
Terminating Parental Rights (TPR Order) entered on November 29,
2024, by the Family Court of the Third Circuit (Family Court).1/
The TPR Order, among other things, terminated Mother's parental
rights to her minor children, L.L., J.L., M.L., C.L., and S.L.
(together, the Children). Mother also challenges certain
findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Family Court's
September 11, 2025 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
(FOFs/COLs).
Mother contends that: (1) the Family Court clearly
erred in finding that Mother could not provide the Children a
safe family home; (2) DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to
reunify Mother and the Children; (3) the Family Court failed to
properly consider guardianship; (4) the Family Court's best
interests determination was "flawed"; and (5) "[t]ime in [c]are

1/
The Honorable Darien W.L. Ching Nagata presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

[i]s [r]elevant but [n]ot [d]eterminative of [t]ermination."2/
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Mother's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) and (5) Mother contends that the Family Court's
findings that she could not provide a safe family home now or in
the foreseeable future "are contradicted by the record." Mother
argues that she "maintained continuous sobriety for over eighteen
months," completed substance abuse treatment and parenting
classes, and "consistently visited her children and progressed to
partially unsupervised visits . . . ." She claims that DHS
"fail[ed] to tailor services" to her "demonstrated progress."
Separately, she argues that the TPR Order "was largely based on
the [C]hildren's extended time in foster care, rather than a
balanced assessment of Mother's progress" and that "preset
timelines" drove DHS's permanency recommendations.
HRS § 587A-33(a) (2018), part of the Child Protective
Act (CPA), governs the termination of parental rights. It
provides, in pertinent part:

Termination of parental rights hearing. (a) At a
termination of parental rights hearing, the court shall
determine whether there exists clear and convincing evidence
that:

(1) A child's parent whose rights are subject to
termination is not presently willing and able to
provide the parent's child with a safe family
home, even with the assistance of a service
plan;
(2) It is not reasonably foreseeable that the
child's parent whose rights are subject to
termination will become willing and able to
provide the child with a safe family home, even
with the assistance of a service plan, within a
reasonable period of time, which shall not
exceed two years from the child's date of entry
into foster care[.]

The Hawai#i Supreme Court has defined a safe family home as "a

2/
The numbered FOFs and COLs listed in the "Points of Error" section
of Mother's Abbreviated Opening Brief do not correspond to Mother's written
descriptions of them. We therefore address the challenged FOFs and COLs based
on Mothers written descriptions rather than her incorrect numerical
references.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

family home in which the child's parents or legal custodian can
adequately provide for the child's physical and psychological
health and welfare and thereby adequately protect the child from
harm, be it actual, imminent, or threatened." In re Doe, 95
Hawai#i 183, 194, 20 P.3d 616, 627 (2001).
Here, when trial started, the Children had been in
foster care for three years and four months.
As to Mother's present willingness and ability to
provide a safe family home, the Family Court found, and Mother
does not contest, that she was unable to maintain stable housing
throughout the period the Children had spent in foster care. See
In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i 522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002)
(unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal (quoting
Poe v. Hawaii Labor Relations Bd., 97 Hawai#i 528, 536, 40 P.3d
930, 938 (2002))). At the time of trial, Mother was temporarily
living alone at her own mother's home. Mother testified that the
home was not suitable even for one child as she did not have a
room or separate area for visits.
The Family Court also found, and Mother does not
contest, that she had not had visits with the four older children
since July of 2021. See In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at
463. At first, supervised visits occurred, but due to Mother's
inconsistent visits and issues at the visits, such as Mother's
intoxication, visits were suspended. At the time of trial,
Mother had made progress in services and sobriety, but the four
older children still clearly expressed that they did not want
visits with Mother – another finding that she does not contest.
See id.
Further, Mother testified that she continued to smoke
cannabis daily to cope with panic attacks and complex trauma
dating back to early adulthood, and was considering a residential
treatment program to address her use of cannabis. She stated
that her panic disorder "flares up" when she tries to stop
smoking cannabis.
DHS social worker Albert Pacheco, Jr. (Pacheco)
testified that despite Mother's progress in achieving sobriety
from alcohol, Mother's mental health remained "fragile" and it

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

would take "at least a year" for her to "be better."
The Family Court found Pacheco's testimony to be
credible. The Family Court found that Mother's statement that
she could provide a safe family home for the Children was not
credible, based on otherwise credible testimony from Mother about
her housing situation, mental health issues, and cannibis use to
cope with past traumatic events.
Mother argues that DHS, by repeating service plan
requirements such as those for substance abuse, psychological
evaluation and parenting classes "continued to recommend the same
generic services without adapting them to Mother's demonstrated
progress." Her argument assumes, however, that she had completed
her recovery from substance abuse and trauma and acquired
sufficient parenting skills to warrant the removal or
substitution of the prescribed services and classes. The record
does not support this assumption.
As to whether Mother will become willing and able to
provide a safe family home in the foreseeable future, it is
undisputed that the Children had been in foster care for more
than three years when trial began. Mother was therefore plainly
unable to show that it was reasonably foreseeable that she would
become able to provide a safe family home, even with the
assistance of a service plan, "within a reasonable period of
time, which shall not exceed two years from the child's date of
entry into foster care." HRS § 587-33(a)(2). "Two years is the
maximum, not minimum, amount of time within which a parent must
become willing and able to provide a safe family home." In re
AK, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 1134991, at *3 (Haw. App. Apr.
18, 2022) (SDO).
We conclude that clear and convincing evidence
supported the Family Court's "safe family home" determinations,
as reflected in FOFs 74, 104 and 105, and COLs 12 and 13. The
Family Court did not clearly err in determining that Mother is
not presently willing and able to provide the Children with a
safe family home, even with the assistance of a service plan, and
it is not reasonably foreseeable that she will become willing and
able to do so within a reasonable period of time.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

(2) Mother contends that the Family Court erred in
finding that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother and
the Children. She argues that DHS made only "generic service
recommendations, fail[ed] to provide therapeutic visits, and
reli[ed] on minimal contact with providers."
"DHS is under an obligation to provide a reasonable
opportunity to parents through a service plan to reunify the
family." In re Doe, 100 Hawai#i 335, 343, 60 P.3d 285, 293
(2002). As the Family Court noted, however, this requirement is
qualified by the paramount concern of the CPA, which is the
health and safety of the child, and the CPA is to be liberally
construed to serve the best interests of the child. See HRS
§ 587A-2; In re Doe, 101 Hawai#i 220, 228, 65 P.3d 167, 175
(2003).
Here, FOFs 110 through 114 discuss DHS's reasonable
efforts to reunify Mother with the Children. The Family Court
gave due weight to DHS's undisputed reunification efforts in the
case, which appear to have been undermined not by any failure of
DHS, but by Mother having showed up to visits intoxicated or
having missed visits altogether. Indeed, it appears that
Mother's conduct led to the suspension of visits and the four
older Children expressing that they did not want visits with
Mother.
The Family Court found, and Mother does not contest,
that DHS treated Mother "fairly and serviced the entire family
intensely" from the start of the DHS and court intervention.
See In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d at 463. On this
record, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supported
FOFs 110 through 114. They are not clearly erroneous.
(3) and (4) Mother contends that the Family Court
failed to properly consider guardianship and, relatedly, that the
court's best interests determination was "[f]lawed." Mother
argues that guardianship was supported by the Children and
accepted by Mother. She further argues that legal guardianship
would have better preserved sibling bonds and was therefore in
the Children's best interests.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

When creating a permanent plan, HRS § 587A-32(a)(3)
requires DHS to document "[a] compelling reason why legal
guardianship or permanent custody is in the child's best
interests if adoption is not the goal[.]" There is no converse
requirement for DHS to document reasons that adoption is
preferable to either guardianship or permanent custody. Neither
HRS § 587A-32 nor § 587A-33 requires the Family Court to consider
other permanency plan options when adoption is the recommended
goal.
Although the parties may have reached a tentative
agreement at one point for legal guardianship for the Children,
DHS's focus shifted to adoption as the Children's need for a more
permanent resolution became clear. Pacheco opined as a child
protective and welfare services expert that adoption was the most
permanent option and provided the most stability for the
Children.
Mother suggests guardianship would better preserve
sibling bonds and cites the Children's desire to remain in close
contact with one another as the reason they were at one point
willing to back a permanent plan that called for guardianship.
However, the Guardian Ad Litem reports to the Family Court show
that the Children's primary motivation in considering
guardianship was to ensure that the youngest sibling, who desired
more or longer visits with Mother, would not be returned to
Mother's custody. Mother points to no evidence that the
Children, who regularly enjoyed visits with one another, would
have lost the opportunity to maintain those ties as a result of
adoption as opposed to legal guardianship.
Mother contends that L.L., who was over the age of 14
at the time of trial, "executed written consent to guardianship
to avoid excluding a sibling." L.L., however, signed a consent
form supporting the May 10, 2024 Permanent Plan recommending
adoption. No consent form was included with an earlier Permanent
Plan that had recommended guardianship. In FOF 81(e), which
Mother does not contest, the Family Court found that "On May 10,
2024, [L.L.] signed a consent form, consenting to the permanent
plan dated May 10, 2024, which calls for termination of parental

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

rights and adoption." See In re Doe, 99 Hawai#i at 538, 57 P.3d
at 463.
On this record, we conclude that clear and convincing
evidence supported the Family Court's determination that adoption
was in the Children's best interests, as reflected in FOF 108 and
COLs 16 and 17. This determination and the related FOFs are not
clearly erroneous.
For the reasons discussed above, the Order Terminating
Parental Rights entered on November 29, 2024, by the Family Court
of the Third Circuit is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 18, 2026.

On the briefs:

Jacob G. Delaplane /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
for Mother-Appellant. Chief Judge

Kenneth G. Goodenow, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Julio G. Herrera, Associate Judge
Kurt Shimamoto, and
Kellie M. Kersten, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Deputy Attorneys General, Associate Judge
for Petitioner-Appellee.

Valerie J. Grab
(The Children's Law Project of
Hawai#i),
Court-appointed Guardian Ad
Litem

7