In re R Children., 454 P.3d 418

KK, born Dec. 20, 2012, was placed in foster care after allegations of domestic violence and parental substance abuse; DHS sought termination of parental rights and proposed adoption by resource caregivers.
DHS filed a motion (July 23, 2015) to terminate Mother and Father's parental rights; multiple service plans had been offered and compliance was inconsistent.
Family court found by clear and convincing evidence that Father could not now or in the foreseeable future provide a safe family home, and terminated Father's parental rights under HRS § 587A-33 (CPA provision).
The family court simultaneously found DHS’s proposed permanent plan (adoption) was not in KK’s best interests and denied termination as to Mother to preserve reunification prospects.
The ICA held the family court could not rely on § 587A-33 because the court had found the permanent plan was not in the child’s best interests, but affirmed termination under the separate family-courts statute, HRS § 571-61(b)(1)(E).
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment and remanded, holding the ICA erred by substituting § 571-61(b)(1)(E) where § 587A-33 contains an additional, mandatory permanent-plan best-interests requirement.

Issue	Father's Argument	DHS/ICA Argument	Held
Whether HRS § 587A-33 permits termination absent a finding that the proposed permanent plan is in the child’s best interests	§ 587A-33 requires a finding that the proposed permanent plan is in the child’s best interests before termination	(ICA view rejected) § 587A-33’s criteria are essentially the same as § 571-61(b)(1)(E) so termination may be affirmed under the family-court statute	Held for Father: § 587A-33 plainly requires a best-interests finding as to the permanent plan; family court erred to terminate under § 587A-33 without that finding
Whether the ICA properly substituted HRS § 571-61(b)(1)(E) to uphold the termination	Substitution was improper because § 571-61(b)(1)(E) lacks the CPA’s additional permanent-plan best-interests requirement	The statutes overlap and are to be read together; family-court statute can supply authority	Held for Father: ICA erred; cannot substitute a more general statute when the CPA contains a specific additional requirement; vacated and remanded

State v. Wheeler, [citation="121 Hawai'i 383, 219 P.3d 1170"] (2009) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Harada, [citation="98 Hawai'i 18, 41 P.3d 174"] (2002) (presumption that legislature intends effective law; interpret statutes to give effect)
State by Kashiwa v. Coney, 45 Haw. 650, 372 P.2d 348 (1962) (specific statutory provisions control over general ones)
In re Jane Doe, [citation="101 Hawai'i 220, 65 P.3d 167"] (2003) (family court conclusions of law reviewed de novo)
In re Doe Born on May 22, 1976, [citation="84 Hawai'i 41, 928 P.2d 883"] (1996) (family court may address CPA issues regardless of initiation vehicle)
In re Male Child Born on May 27, 1983, 8 Haw. App. 66, 793 P.2d 669 (1990) (construing “foreseeable future” in interplay of statutes)