In the Interest of T.M.
131 Haw. 419
Haw.2014Background
- DHS filed petitions for temporary foster custody over Petitioner and her son T.M. on January 6, 2010.
- The court informed parties of the option for court-appointed counsel and indicated it would review applications if financially eligible, but Petitioner initially received no attorney.
- St. John served as Petitioner’s guardian ad litem, with indications of potential conflict between GAL and attorney roles, and no separate counsel was appointed for Petitioner.
- Petitioner’s parental rights were ultimately terminated based on hearings culminating in a 2012 TPR ruling; counsel was appointed for Petitioner only on September 13, 2011, five months before the TPR hearing.
- The two-year statutory deadline for reunification or permanent placement loomed (dates around February 10, 2012), but Petitioner lacked timely legal representation during critical proceedings.
- ICA affirmed the termination, while the Chief Judge dissented, urging vacatur and remand due to late appointment of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse its discretion by delaying counsel for the indigent parent? | Doe | DHS | Yes; nineteen-month delay was an abuse of discretion |
| Does the Hawaii Constitution guarantee the right to counsel in termination proceedings for indigent parents? | Doe | DHS | Yes; indigent parents are entitled to court-appointed counsel in termination proceedings |
| Should the termination order be vacated and remanded due to lack of timely counsel? | Doe | DHS | Yes; vacate TPR order and remand for new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (due process and right to counsel in parental termination cases)
- In re Doe, 99 Haw. 522, 57 P.3d 447 (Haw. 2002) (parental liberty interest; right to counsel; interpreters where rights are affected)
- In re A Children, 119 Haw. 0, 193 P.3d 1228 (App. 2008) (case-by-case approach to appointment of counsel; concerns about delay and notice)
- RGB, 123 Haw. 47, 229 P.3d 1112 (Haw. 2010) (dissent on right to counsel; discussion of case-by-case approach and due process)
- Matter of K.L.J., 813 P.2d 276 (Alaska 1991) (critique of Lassiter’s case-by-case balancing approach in termination cases)