In re: ASK., 522 P.3d 270

DHS removed three young siblings for neglect, placed them with DHS-vetted Resource Caregivers (RCGs); the children lived with RCGs for ~2–3 years by trial.
Mother died during proceedings; father stipulated to termination of parental rights in July 2020; DHS assumed legal custody and sought a permanent placement.
RCGs sought to adopt; the children’s paternal aunt and uncle (Relatives) intervened and filed their own adoption petition; DHS withheld consent to Relatives’ petition and recommended RCGs.
Family Court held a four-day trial, issued a 46‑page order with 200+ findings and granted adoption to RCGs, denying Relatives; the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.
Relatives appealed to the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court arguing the court improperly relied on HRS §571‑46(b) custody factors, gave undue weight to attachment (and undervalued blood/financial evidence), and failed to independently review DHS’s placement recommendation.
Supreme Court held: family courts in adoption/permanent placement cases may consider any admissible evidence relevant to the dispositive inquiry—what serves the best interests of the individual—there are no statutory presumptions or "super‑factors," and the family court here lawfully and independently weighed the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether family courts must apply HRS §571‑46(b) custody factors in adoption/permanent placement proceedings	Relatives: Court erred by relying on §571‑46(b) factors; those parental custody factors are inapt and should not control	DHS/RCGs: §571‑46(b) factors can be considered where relevant; they are not mandatory barriers	Court: §571‑46(b) factors may be relevant but are not required; courts may consider any admissible evidence probative of the individual’s best interests
Whether the court gave improper or presumptive weight to attachment and ignored relatives’ blood/financial evidence	Relatives: Court overvalued attachment to RCGs, undervalued kinship and financial evidence	DHS/RCGs: Attachment and stability are probative; court considered finances and kinship but found them unpersuasive	Court: No automatic preferential treatment; attachment was properly weighed and found compelling under the facts; finances/kinship were considered but did not change the result
Whether the family court rubber‑stamped DHS’s placement recommendation without independent review	Relatives: Court deferred to DHS and failed the independent best‑interests review required after termination	DHS/RCGs: Court conducted a full evidentiary hearing and independently assessed evidence	Court: Family court performed an independent, thorough review (200+ findings); no rubber‑stamp or abuse of discretion

In re Doe, 100 Hawai‘i 335, 60 P.3d 285 (2002) (DHS assumes legal custody after parental rights termination and must place child in a suitable permanent home)
In re AS, 132 Hawai‘i 368, 322 P.3d 263 (2014) (family court must independently review DHS placement recommendations under a best‑interests standard)
In re AB, 145 Hawai‘i 498, 454 P.3d 439 (2019) (reversing where family court failed to independently analyze DHS out‑of‑state placement and alternatives)
In re Interest of Hannah L., 390 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2017) (custody factors from parental cases need not govern adoption best‑interests decisions)
Matter of Adoption of ZEM, 458 P.3d 21 (Wyo. 2020) (trial court may consider numerous factors; no single factor is dispositive in adoption determinations)
Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai‘i 41, 137 P.3d 355 (2006) (family court has wide discretion in family matters; reversible only for manifest abuse of discretion)