Waldecker v. O'Scanlon.
137 Haw. 460
| Haw. | 2016Background
- Divorce of Waldecker and O'Scanlon in Nevada (2010) with Settlement Agreement incorporated into Nevada divorce decree; agreement awarded joint custody but automatic relocation-based custody change if >200 miles from Oahu or San Francisco.
- Waldecker and Daughter moved to Oahu; O'Scanlon followed; Nevada decree contemplated relocation scenarios and future custody changes.
- In 2014 Waldecker sought to relocate to Florida, claiming material change in circumstances and wishing to modify custody; O'Scanlon sought enforcement of the automatic relocation-based custody provision.
- Hawaii Family Court held there was no material change in circumstances due to the decree's relocation provision and enforced sole custody to O'Scanlon without explicit best-interests findings.
- ICA affirmed; Waldecker sought certiorari arguing (a) best-interests findings required; (b) automatic provision enforceable only with best-interests analysis; (c) statute/rule compliance.
- Supreme Court held the family court erred by enforcing the automatic provision without considering the child's best interests and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforcing the automatic custody change without best interests analysis was proper. | Waldecker contends best interests must be considered. | O'Scanlon argues the decree governs relocation and requires enforcement. | Not proper; best interests analysis required. |
| Whether relocation provisions negate the material-change standard. | Waldecker argues relocation is a material change requiring review. | O'Scanlon relies on decree's provision to deny material-change finding. | Relocation with a decree provision still requires best-interests review. |
| Whether HFCR Rule 54.2(a) was violated by enforcing the decree without a best-interests finding. | Waldecker claims rule requires best-interests finding for stipulations. | O'Scanlon argues rule not triggered as decree enforced as written. | Waived; if addressed, merit lacking; not controlling here. |
| Should Nadeau/Hollaway doctrine persist as requiring material change before best-interests analysis? | Waldecker urges focus on best interests, not rigid material-change rule. | O'Scanlon relies on historical material-change requirement. | Overruled; focus is on best interests per Dela Cruz framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz, 35 Haw. Terr. 95 (1939) (welfare paramount; modification guided by best interests)
- Dacoscos v. Dacoscos, 38 Haw. Terr. 265 (1948) (change of circumstances must support best interests)
- Turoff v. Turoff, 56 Haw. 51 (1974) (best interests considered; no rigid material-change rule adopted)
- Nadeau v. Nadeau, 10 Haw. App. 111 (1993) (relocation provisions viewed with material-change scrutiny)
- Hollaway v. Hollaway, 133 Haw. 415 (2014) (ICA: material-change requirement not adopted by this court; focus on best interests)
- In re Doe, 95 Haw. 183 (2001) (deference to family court; best interests standard)