Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal Petitioner v. DS – Writ of Mandamus Denied, Cus...
Priority review Enforcement Amended Final

Petitioner v. DS – Writ of Mandamus Denied, Custody Documents Stricken

Favicon for www.courts.state.hi.us Hawaii Supreme Court
Filed
Detected
Email

Summary

The Hawaii Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed June 10, 2025, finding it moot because the Intermediate Court of Appeals had vacated the underlying February 13, 2025 child custody order in CAAP-25-0000175. A separate petition for extraordinary writ filed January 7, 2026 was also denied, with the court noting that family court post-divorce custody and visitation orders are appealable and extraordinary writ proceedings may not be used in lieu of normal appellate procedures. The court further struck from the record all documents filed after August 26, 2025 that contained the minor child's name or personal information, in violation of Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules 2.19 and 9.1, after Petitioner failed to demonstrate good faith compliance despite a prior warning.

“Based on the record, we construe the letter as a petition for writ of mandamus and deny the petition as moot because the Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the February 13, 2025 child custody order in CAAP-25-0000175.”

Published by HI Supreme Court on courts.state.hi.us . Detected, standardized, and enriched by GovPing. Review our methodology and editorial standards .

About this source

GovPing monitors Hawaii Supreme Court for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 131 changes logged to date.

What changed

The court denied both the June 2025 petition (construed from a letter as a petition for writ of mandamus) and the January 2026 petition for extraordinary writ. The first was denied as moot because the ICA vacated the underlying custody order; the second was denied because family court custody orders are properly appealed, not reviewed by extraordinary writ under Womble Bond Dickinson v. Kim. The court also exercised its authority over the record by striking all documents filed after August 26, 2025 that included the minor child's name, finding that Petitioner had not shown good faith compliance with HCRR Rules 2.19 and 9.1 despite an explicit prior warning.

Parties appearing before Hawaiʻi courts in family law matters should note that custody and visitation orders are appealable through normal appellate procedures, not extraordinary writ proceedings. Filers must use a child's initials or general terms such as 'Child' or 'Minor Child' in all court filings to comply with HCRR Rule 2.19; repeated violations may result in documents being stricken from the record.

Archived snapshot

Apr 23, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-25-0000444 22-APR-2026 08:19 AM Dkt. 197 ODDP SCPW-25-0000444 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________ IN RE DS ________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 3DV121000235) ORDER DENYING PETITIONS (By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Cahill, assigned by reason of vacancy) A letter from Petitioner was filed on June 10, 2025. Based on the record, we construe the letter as a petition for writ of mandamus and deny the petition as moot because the Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the February 13, 2025 child custody order in CAAP-25-0000175. As to the petition for extraordinary writ filed January 7, 2026, the family court's post-divorce decree custody and visitation orders are appealable. See Eaton v. Eaton, 7 Haw. App. 111, 118-19, 748 P.2d 801, 805 (App. 1987). An extraordinary writ proceeding is not an appeal and is not intended to be used in lieu of normal appellate procedures. See

Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319, 537 P.3d 1154, 1166 (2023). Also, Petitioner's arguments in this petition have not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to relief. See id. It is ordered that the January 7, 2026 petition is denied. Since the first petition was filed on June 10, 2025, Petitioner filed many documents in this court that contain the name of a minor child, in violation of Rules 2.19 and 9.1 of the Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules (HCRR). An order was filed on August 26, 2025, that warned Petitioner against future violations of HCRR Rules 2.19 and 9.1. For example, rather than use the minor child's name, Petitioner may instead use the child's initials or refer to the child using general terms, such as "Child" or "Minor Child." See HCRR Rule 2.19. Petitioner correctly referred to the minor child using general terms in some documents filed after the August 26, 2025 order. But most of the numerous documents that Petitioner filed after the August 26, 2025 order do not comply with HCRR Rules 2.19 and 9.1 notwithstanding the warning issued in the August 26, 2025 order. Based on this record, we find that Petitioner has not shown a good faith attempt to comply with HCRR Rules 2.19 and 9.1. See HCRR Rule 9.5. It is ordered that all documents filed after the August 26, 2025 order and

contain the minor child's name or other personal information of the child, see HCRR Rule 2.19, are stricken from this record. All remaining documents filed as motions and the petition filed at docket 22 (redacted version at docket 73) are denied without prejudice to consideration in other courts. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 22, 2026. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza /s/ Vladimir P. Devens /s/ Peter T. Cahill

Named provisions

HCRR Rule 2.19 HCRR Rule 9.1 HCRR Rule 9.5

Parties

Get daily alerts for Hawaii Supreme Court

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from HI Supreme Court.

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
HI Supreme Court
Filed
April 22nd, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Branch
Judicial
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Substantive
Docket
SCPW-25-0000444 3DV121000235 CAAP-25-0000175 docket 22 docket 73

Who this affects

Applies to
Legal professionals Courts
Industry sector
9211 Government & Public Administration
Activity scope
Custody order proceedings Visitation order appeals Court record filings
Geographic scope
US-HI US-HI

Taxonomy

Primary area
Family Law
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Civil Rights Judicial Administration

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when Hawaii Supreme Court publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!