A recent ruling by the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaiʻi has sent a custody case back to the Family Court for further review. The case involves a father, S.A., appealing decisions made by the Family Court regarding the custody of his child. The court’s decision highlights several procedural and factual concerns, ultimately leading to the vacation of previous orders and a remand for additional proceedings.
Background of the Case
The parents, S.A. (the Father) and H.A. (the Mother), were divorced on April 3, 2023. The divorce decree granted them joint legal and physical custody of their child, with a schedule of alternating two-week periods.
The Father initiated post-decree relief on May 31, 2023, seeking sole legal custody and physical custody during the school year, claiming concerns about the Mother’s lifestyle, specifically citing “alcohol abuse.” This motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing, and the Family Court maintained joint custody, issuing an order that neither parent should drink and drive while the child was in their care.
Events Leading to the Appeal
On August 15, 2024, the Mother was charged with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII). The Father filed another motion for post-decree relief on August 26, 2024, requesting temporary sole custody due to the Mother’s arrest.
The Family Court referred the case to a child custody evaluator, Barbara Wung Shintani, who filed a report on October 28, 2024. The court also ordered the Mother to participate in Soberlink monitoring and test daily when the child was with her. Temporary orders were put in place on March 11, 2025.
An extended evidentiary hearing was held on March 21, 2025, resulting in the denial of the Father’s motion and the vacating of the alcohol testing requirements for the Mother. The court maintained the prohibition on alcohol consumption by either parent while the child was in their care.
Father’s Appeal and Points of Error
The Father appealed the Family Court’s orders, raising several points of error:
- A new judge was abruptly assigned on the date of trial, proceeding without familiarity with the case.
- The court denied a Motion in Limine and allowed prejudicial, irrelevant testimony from Ronald Freitas, the Mother’s father.
- The court excluded critical documentary evidence without justification.
- The court denied the Father’s request for remote witness testimony.
- The Family Court ignored a child custody evaluator’s recommendation.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Intermediate Court of Appeals addressed each of the Father’s points of error. The court found some of the Father’s arguments lacked the necessary support, such as citing specific evidence or objections in the record, which is required by the Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court disregarded the first four points of error due to these failures.
However, the court found merit in the Father’s claim that the Family Court had, in effect, ignored the child custody evaluator’s recommendations. The evaluator’s report raised serious concerns about the Mother’s alcohol use and its potential impact on the child, including the mother’s minimization of her alcohol use, and that the child was sensitive to any alcohol use. The evaluator also recommended that the Family Court consider a change in the custody schedule.
The appellate court noted that the Family Court’s findings of fact were largely summaries of testimony and did not provide sufficient reasoning for its decisions. In particular, the court found the Family Court’s reasons for vacating the alcohol monitoring orders insufficient. The court stated that the Family Court failed to make findings explaining why the Mother being charged with OVUII made the issue speculative or stale. The appellate court also found that the Family Court did not establish “cogent reasons” to vacate the prior orders, which is required for modifying previous rulings.
Outcome and Next Steps
As a result of these findings, the Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the Family Court’s March 21, 2025 orders and the June 13, 2025 findings of fact and conclusions of law. The case was remanded to the Family Court.
The Family Court is now required to make appropriate findings and conclusions based on the evidence from the March 21, 2025 hearing and determine the child’s best interests. The court must also explain its reasons for any changes to prior orders. If it is not possible to make findings based on the existing evidence, the Family Court must conduct another evidentiary hearing on the Father’s August 26, 2024, motion for post-decree relief.
This decision underscores the importance of thorough fact-finding and clear reasoning in family court proceedings, particularly in cases involving child custody and parental substance use. The appellate court’s ruling ensures that the child’s best interests remain the paramount concern in these legal matters.