Hollaway v. Hollaway
133 Haw. 415
| Haw. App. | 2014Background
- Parents divorced in 2004; divorce decree awarded them joint legal and physical custody of their son but did not specify decision-making tie-breakers for future disputes.
- Son attended Palisades Elementary; Mother sought to enroll him at Kamehameha (a private school with religious instruction and admissions preference for Hawaiian ancestry); Father objected on secular/religious and racial-policy grounds and preferred public intermediate school (Highlands).
- Parents reached an impasse over school choice; Mother filed a post-decree motion asking the court to allow her to enroll Son at Kamehameha.
- At hearing both parents testified about educational benefits of their preferred schools; exhibits described Kamehameha programs but provided no direct evidence comparing Kamehameha to Highlands or other public options.
- Family Court issued an oral ruling and later an order granting Mother sole authority over educational decisions, finding private school may offer options public school may not; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the family court may intervene in a joint-custody deadlock over school choice without a prior finding of material change in circumstances | Court can resolve specific deadlocks; impasse is a material change justifying limited modification | Modification requires a material change in circumstances and court abused discretion by altering joint custody absent such finding | Court: Impasse between joint custodial parents constitutes a material change for resolving that discrete issue; COL 1 upheld |
| Whether substantial evidence supported finding that private school (Kamehameha) offered Son educational options public school did not | Mother: Kamehameha provides superior curriculum and opportunities; Mother more likely to offer options | Father: No substantial, comparative evidence; public schools (Highlands) offer strong programs (robotics) | Court: Record lacks substantial evidence comparing Kamehameha to public alternatives; FOF 7 and 8 and COL 2–3 vacated |
| Whether awarding Mother authority to enroll Son in a religious, preferential-admission private school violated Father’s constitutional parenting rights | Mother: Court may apply best-interests standard to resolve parental impasse; no constitutional violation | Father: Decision infringes his liberty/right to direct child’s upbringing and religious upbringing | Court: No constitutional violation in resolving joint-custody impasse under best-interests standard |
| Whether court properly considered Father’s objections about Kamehameha’s religious instruction and admissions policy in best-interests analysis | Mother: Best-interests inquiry governs; educational benefits considered | Father: Court failed to weigh his objections to religious curriculum and racially preferential admissions | Court: Family Court erred by failing to address/consider Father’s objections; remand ordered for reconsideration with those factors weighed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parents’ constitutional right to direct upbringing of their children)
- In re Doe, [citation="99 Hawai'i 522"] (Haw. 2002) (Hawai‘i Constitution protects parental liberty interest in care, custody, and control)
- Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Med. Grp., [citation="94 Hawai'i 297"] (1999) (generalized expert opinion may not constitute substantial evidence)
- Morgan v. Morgan, 964 So.2d 24 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (court may resolve schooling disputes between joint custodial parents; impasse can justify intervention)
- Egger v. Egger, [citation="112 Hawai'i 312"] (Haw. Ct. App. 2006) (change of custody requires material change in circumstances generally)