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 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

W.C. v. T.C.

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: CAAP-25-0000469

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (4.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
05-MAR-2026
07:56 AM
Dkt. 46 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

W.C., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
T.C., Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2DV181000355)

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

In this appeal, self-represented Defendant-Appellant
T.C. (Mother) challenges the family court's denial of her motion
for post-decree relief requesting modification of a custody
order to allow her more unsupervised visitation with her child
(Child). We affirm.
Mother appeals from the Family Court of the Second
Circuit's (Family Court) 1 February 6, 2026 "Findings of Facts
[sic] [(FOFs)] and Conclusions of Law [(COLs)]" (Order Denying

1 The Honorable James R. Rouse presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Motion for Post-Decree Relief), denying Mother's April 14, 2025
"Motion and Affidavit for Post-Decree Relief" (Motion for Post-
Decree Relief). 2
On appeal, 3 Mother contends the Family Court erred by
denying her Motion for Post-Decree Relief on the ground that
Mother "failed to prove a change in circumstance."
Upon review of the record on appeal and relevant legal
authorities, giving due consideration to the issues raised and
arguments advanced by Mother, 4 we resolve the contention as
follows.
The December 5, 2019 divorce decree awarded Father
sole physical and legal custody of Child, and granted Mother
"supervised visits" with Child.
Following the denial of Mother's four previous motions
filed in 2021 to 2023 requesting modification of the divorce
decree for unsupervised time with Child, Mother filed a fifth
motion on June 27, 2024, again requesting unsupervised
visitation. The family court 5 granted the motion in part on

2 We temporarily remanded this matter to the Family Court on
December 19, 2025, for entry of a final order denying Mother's Motion for
Post-Decree Relief. The Family Court entered the final order with FOFs and
COLs on February 6, 2026.

3 Mother's Opening Brief does not contain citations to the record,
and the points of error do not identify "where in the record" the alleged
errors occurred and how they were preserved. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b). Despite the noncompliance, Mother's arguments
are addressed to the extent they are discernible. See Erum v. Llego, 147
Hawaiʻi 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020).

On February 25, 2026, Mother filed an unauthorized "Reply Brief,"
which we construe as a supplemental brief addressing the Family Court's
February 6, 2026 FOFs/COLs. In the supplemental brief, Mother appears to
present the same arguments she presented in the Opening Brief to challenge
the Family Court's FOFs/COLs. These arguments are unpersuasive.

4 Plaintiff-Appellee W.C. (Father) did not file an Answering Brief.

5 The Honorable Lance D. Collins presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

December 17, 2024, and modified the decree to "permit one of the
visitations every other week to be unsupervised." The family
court ordered a March 17, 2025 status hearing to assess "whether
to maintain, discontinue or increase unsupervised visits." At
the March 17, 2025 status hearing, the family court ordered no
further changes to the decree and no further hearings.
Less than a month later, on April 14, 2025, Mother
filed the sixth Motion for Post-Decree Relief at issue in this
case using a standardized form, again requesting modification of
the decree for "more parenting time with Child unsupervised."
In the portion of the form that asked what had "changed since
the last custody order," Mother wrote: "The Mother has completed
all court's orders and more. The current order is harming Child
and is not in [Child's] best interest. The Child want's [sic]
more time with her [M]other." Attached was a document outlining
"several reasons why the existing order . . . should be
modified[,]" including that "the [C]hild's right to maintain a
relationship with her [M]other and the [M]other's side of the
family" was being denied; Father continued to "interfere with
the [C]hild's contact and relationship with her [M]other"; a
previous temporary restraining order (TRO) against Mother "ha[d]
expired"; Mother had "completed 9 months of anger management
classes," was "cleared by her psychologist," and had "completed
parenting classes"; and there "have not been any supervised
visits for the past 4 months due to [F]ather's refusal to allow
someone other than [his girlfriend] to supervise."
At the May 12, 2025 hearing on Mother's latest motion,
the Family Court asked Mother, "What is the material change in
circumstance?" and Mother responded:
I continue to file motions because [sic] the same
situation. I'm not seeing my child. So we had court last
month for the -- I think it was supposed to be a

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reconvenience [sic] for the order that they had done,
giving me 50 minutes -- two 50-minute visits per month, and
we were supposed to see how things went, and the judge was
supposed to, you know, see whether or not we were going to
stay like that or I was not going to have supervised visit.
But then he said if I wanted to change that motion, I had
to file another motion for court. So I did so and that's
why we're here.

(Emphasis added.) Father argued there was no change in
circumstance since the last March 17, 2025 hearing, Mother was a
"vexatious litigant[,]" and Mother did not do what the Family
Court "asked her to do like therapy for herself." Mother
responded that she had "done everything the Court's [sic]
ordered [her] to do," she had "done therapy[,]" that Father
denied Mother "one visit last month[,]" that she was being
denied a "different supervisor" for her supervised visits with
Child, and that she should not be "separated from [her] [C]hild"
because it was not in the Child's "best interest."
The Family Court denied the Motion for Post-Decree
Relief because "there[] [was] no allegation of new material
change in circumstance[,]" and the issues Mother raised were
previously litigated. The Family Court's Order Denying Motion
for Post-Decree Relief made the following pertinent FOFs and
COLs:
FINDINGS OF FACT

. . . .

1. On April[ ]14, 2025, 27 days after the last hearing,
   Mother filed a Motion and Affidavit for Post Decree Relief.

2. In the April 14, 2025 pleading, "Mother requests more
   parenting time with the child unsupervised. 50 minutes 2
   times a month is interfering with Mother and child bond.
   Child has no time to spend quality time with [Child's]
   mother and has no time to spend with [Child's] grandfather,
   uncles, aunty and cousins due to restricted visitation."

3. The April 14, 2025 pleading reads further, "A change in
   custody and or visitation as requested is appropriate
   because the circumstances of the subject child have changed

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

since the las [sic] custody order as follows: The Mother
has completed all Court's orders and more. The current
order is harming [C]hild and is not in [Child's] best
interest. The child wants more time with her mother."

. . . .

1. The Court finds by taking judicial notice of the
   records and files of the entire case files and history of
   the case, these allegations are unsupported by the evidence
   previously presented and the Court's prior findings.

2. Mother's April 14, 2025 pleading re-asserts arguments
   that have already been raised and rejected by this Court.

. . . .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

. . . .

1. Mother, presented no new claim in her April 14, 2025 pleading that would justify any change in the order dated March 17, 2025.

Mother timely appealed.
Mother argues that the Family Court abused its
discretion when it denied "her request for modification" where a
modification is "in the [C]hild's best interests"; Father's TRO
against Mother "expired 3 years ago"; and Mother has since
"rehabilitated herself," "done therapy," and "received clearance
as to her mental state."
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-46(a)(6) (2018)
provides that "[a]ny custody award shall be subject to
modification or change whenever the best interests of the child
require or justify the modification or change." Under HRS
§ 571-46, "there is a single inquiry which focuses on the best
interests of the child[,]" which is "whether or not there has
been such a change of circumstances that the modification will
be for the best interest of the child." Waldecker v. O'Scanlon,

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

137 Hawaiʻi 460, 470, 375 P.3d 239, 249 (2016) (citation and
brackets omitted).
Here, the record reflects, and the Family Court found,
that the arguments asserted in Mother's latest motion regarding
a change in circumstances were previously raised by Mother in
her prior motions, and were already considered in the family
court's prior March 17, 2025 custody order. See FOF 37. We
conclude the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Mother's April 14, 2025 Motion for Post-Decree Relief.
See Kakinami v. Kakinami, 127 Hawaiʻi 126, 136, 276 P.3d 695, 705
(2012) (recognizing the family court's "wide discretion in
making its decisions" (citation omitted)).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Family Court
of the Second Circuit's February 6, 2026 Order Denying Motion
for Post-Decree Relief.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 5, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
T.C.,
Chief Judge
Self-Represented Defendant-
Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge

6