In Re Interest of FG, 421 P.3d 1267

In 2016 DHS obtained family supervision and later foster custody of Parents' three children under HRS Ch. 587A; by July 2017 all three children were in foster care and FG (age 3) died while in foster care.
Mother posted on Facebook naming FG and one surviving child and alleging injuries; Father gave a TV interview mentioning the surviving children were in DHS custody (without naming them).
DHS moved ex parte for a TRO to prevent Parents from disclosing confidential CPA/DHS information; a TRO was entered, then modified after a hearing to (a) bar disclosure of records submitted or to be submitted to the court (pursuant to HRS §587A-40) and (b) bar public disclosure of the two surviving children’s names.
Parents appealed, arguing the name ban was an unconstitutional prior restraint (First Amendment) and that the records prohibition was vague and unsupported.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court vacated the family court’s order: it held the court failed to make the specific findings required under the Levine prior-restraint test for the name ban, and abused its discretion in entering the injunction against release of CPA records because the record was insufficient and the order lacked specific factual findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prohibiting Parents from publicly disclosing their surviving children’s names is a permissible prior restraint	Parents: Order is an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment speech; no evidence names disclosure posed imminent harm	DHS: Name ban satisfies Levine test because confidentiality of child-protective proceedings is a compelling interest and disclosure could harm children	Vacated — family court failed to make the specific findings required by Levine (compelling interest, imminence/serious threat, narrow tailoring, lack of less-restrictive alternatives); order remanded and may be renewed with proper findings within 45 days
Whether injunction barring release of records "that have been or will be submitted" to the court was proper	Parents: They had not released court/DHS records; statutory protections already prohibit disclosure; injunction unnecessary and vague	DHS: Needed an order to prevent further unauthorized disclosures and to protect foster/resource families	Vacated — family court abused discretion: record insufficient to justify extraordinary injunctive relief; order lacked factual basis and specific reasons and contained unclear language, so it is procedurally defective

Levine v. U.S. Dist. Court for the C.D. of Cal., 764 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1985) (articulates three‑part test for prior restraints on trial participants)
Breiner v. Takao, 835 P.2d 637 (Haw. 1992) (trial court must make specific findings before imposing prior restraints)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (recognizes compelling state interest in confidentiality of child-abuse records)
Wahba, LLC v. USRP (Don), LLC, 106 P.3d 1109 (Haw. 2005) (restraining orders must state reasons and factual basis; otherwise procedurally defective)
State v. Peseti, 65 P.3d 119 (Haw. 2003) (discusses in camera review and limited disclosure to protect child-abuse information)