In re: GL and AL
149 Haw. 380
| Haw. App. | 2021Background
- DHS removed twin children from parents' custody (entry into foster care Nov. 16, 2017) after findings of neglect, exposure to domestic violence, illicit drug use, and unsafe home conditions; children disclosed sexual abuse and exhibited trauma-related behaviors.
- Children placed in foster/resource care, began therapy in July 2018, and made substantial behavioral, emotional, and academic gains in the caregivers' home; therapist and GAL conditioned contact on therapeutic readiness.
- Mother was largely absent early in the case (incarcerated, missed court and evaluations), delayed participation in psychological evaluation and services, and the court found she minimized her role and lacked insight.
- Father had significant health limitations (dialysis), left children unsupervised or with inappropriate caregivers, relied on others (including an adult half-brother who sexually abused GL), and repeatedly violated no-contact orders; his visits were suspended due to children’s regressions.
- Family Court held termination hearing Oct.–Nov. 2020, found by clear and convincing evidence both parents were unfit and unlikely to reunify within a reasonable period (statutory two-year benchmark exceeded), approved permanent plan of adoption, and terminated parental rights; Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parent is presently willing and able to provide a safe family home (HRS § 587A-33(a)(1)) | Mother/Father: argued they were willing/able and could with a service plan | DHS/Family Court: parents lack insight, failed to make needed changes; safety risks remain | Affirmed — FOFs supported by substantial evidence; parents not presently able even with services |
| Whether it is reasonably foreseeable parent will become willing/able within a reasonable period (≤2 years) (HRS § 587A-33(a)(2)) | Mother/Father: argued they could become able within reasonable time with services | DHS/Family Court: delays, lack of progress, severity of children’s trauma, and parents’ conduct made reunification unlikely within two years | Affirmed — court found no reasonable foreseeability of reunification within statutory period |
| Whether DHS provided reasonable reunification efforts, services, and visitation | Mother/Father: claimed DHS failed to timely refer services, provide recommended therapies, and denied visitation | DHS/Family Court: timely, appropriate referrals were made; delays due to parents’ noncompliance and children’s therapeutic readiness; visitation limited to protect children | Affirmed — DHS made reasonable, active efforts; service/visitation delays attributable to parents/children’s needs |
| Whether adoption is in children’s best interests and whether DHS had compelling reasons not to file termination motion | Father: argued adoption not best, relatives not adequately explored, and DHS should have delayed filing | DHS/Family Court: explored relatives, found adoption would best meet children’s long-term safety and therapeutic needs; no exception to filing applied | Affirmed — permanent plan of adoption was in children’s best interests; no compelling reason to delay filing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Doe, [citation="95 Hawai'i 183, 20 P.3d 616"] (2001) (standards for family court discretion, review of FOFs/COLs, and mixed questions of law and fact)
- In re Doe, [citation="99 Hawai'i 522, 57 P.3d 447"] (2002) (unchallenged factual findings bind appellate court)
- In re Doe, [citation="100 Hawai'i 335, 60 P.3d 285"] (2002) (DHS obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunify family)