In re: AK and SK
151 Haw. 15
| Haw. App. | 2022Background
- Three siblings (AK, SK, MK) were removed in 2018–2019 after reports of parental drug abuse and neglect; DHS placed them with resource caregivers (RCGs) CG and AG.
- Mother later died; Father stipulated to termination of parental rights in July 2020 and the DHS adopted a permanent plan recommending the RCGs for adoption.
- Appellants MR and DR (paternal aunt and her husband) intervened, sought an ICPC for mainland placement, and filed a competing adoption petition after the RCGs’ adoption petition was filed.
- DHS, as the children’s permanent custodian, consented to the RCGs’ adoption and withheld consent to Appellants’ petition, citing the children’s attachment to the RCGs, stability needs, and other factors.
- The family court held the RCGs are fit, financially able, and that adoption by the RCGs was in the children’s best interests while denying Appellants’ petition; Appellants appealed raising six errors.
- The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the family court’s rulings (including that DHS did not unreasonably withhold consent) were not clearly erroneous; one legal error by the family court was deemed harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family court erred by stating “best interests” cannot mean “better interests” (COL 21) | Appellants: In re Doe cited too broadly; family court misapplied standard in adoption context | DHS: Adoption review differs from parental-rights termination; error was harmless given overall analysis | Court: Family court erred in relying on In re Doe here but error was harmless; affirmations stand |
| Whether kinship must be treated as a substantial factor in placement (COL 23) | Appellants: Court wrongly minimized kinship/relative placement preference | DHS: No statutory absolute preference; best-interest inquiry controls | Court: Family court misread a footnote in In re AB but considered kinship; error harmless under totality of evidence |
| Whether DHS unreasonably withheld consent to Appellants’ adoption (FOFs 194–197; COLs 28,30,34) | Appellants: DHS unreasonably withheld consent and should have allowed Appellants’ adoption | DHS: As permanent custodian it reasonably assessed attachment, stability, and best interests and may consent to only one competing adoption | Court: DHS did not unreasonably withhold consent; family court did not clearly err |
| Whether RCGs are financially able to provide proper home and education (HRS §578-8(a)(3)) (FOFs 170–173; COLs 21,42) | Appellants: RCGs’ income and financial instability undermine finding they can provide for children | DHS/RCGs: CG’s testimony and demonstrated resourcefulness suffice; DHS had no concerns | Court: Family court misstated a monthly figure but did not clearly err overall; finding stands |
| Whether family court improperly deferred to DHS and misapplied HRS §571-46(b) factors (FOFs cited) | Appellants: Court gave too much deference to DHS and failed independent best-interest analysis per In re AS and In re HA | DHS: DHS has initial placement authority; family court must but can rely on DHS’s expertise while making independent determination | Court: Family court independently evaluated the evidence and applied factors; no clear error |
| Whether length of placement with RCGs created an impermissible presumption favoring RCGs | Appellants: Court treated bonding/time with RCGs as presumptive and dispositive | DHS: Duration and bonding are legitimate best-interest factors (esp. child’s attachment) | Court: No improper presumption; court weighed duration among other factors and treated it appropriately |
Key Cases Cited
- In re AS, [citation="132 Hawai'i 368"] (2014) (DHS has discretion for initial placement but family court must review and the challenger bears burden to show placement not in child’s best interests)
- In re HA, [citation="143 Hawai'i 64"] (App. 2017) (adoption decree requires satisfying HRS §578-8(a) and challenger must prove DHS unreasonably withheld consent)
- In re AB, [citation="145 Hawai'i 498"] (2019) (observed concerns when family court accepted a relative placement without adequate best-interest inquiry)
- In re Doe, [citation="95 Hawai'i 201"] (App. 2000) (in parental-rights termination context, court warned against equating "better" life with grounds for termination)