PUBLIC FIRST LAW CENTER, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MATTHEW J. VIOLA, Senior Judge of the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge, and THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAIʻI; NICOLE CUMMINGS, in her capacity as guardian ad litem for interested minor children and personal representative of the estate of Isabella P. Kalua formerly known as Ariel Sellers; LEHUA KALUA; ISAAC KALUA III; STEPHEN LANE in his capacity as court appointed special master; DEAN NAGAMINE, ESQ., in his capacity as guardian ad litem for interested minor children; ARLENE A. HARADA-BROWN in her capacity as guardian ad litem for interested minor children; MELANIE JOSEPH also known as MELANIE SELLERS; ADAM SELLERS; and COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES PROGRAM, Respondents.
SCPW-24-0000464
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
SEPTEMBER 30, 2025
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
---o0o---
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
RECKTENWALD, C.J., MCKENNA, EDDINS, GINOZA, AND DEVENS, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY EDDINS, J.
This case asks whether
These laws allow public access. In this original proceeding we order the disclosure of the case records with redactions of information about the Siblings.
I.
Petitioner Public First Law Center (Public First) moved the Family Court of the First Circuit for access to the CPA and adoption
CPA and adoption records are confidential.
But there are exceptions. Family courts may release CPA records to non-parties when “access is in the best interests of the child or serves some other legitimate purpose.”
The Siblings, represented by counsel, lodged no objection in family court to Public First’s request for the records, as long as the court redacted information to protect the Siblings’ identities.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) opposed the release of the records.
DHS cited Kema v. Gaddis to support the continued confidentiality of the CPA records. 91 Hawaiʻi 200, 982 P.2d 334 (1999). DHS argued that the Siblings’ information was “inextricably intertwined” with Ariel’s information, just like in Kema. Thus, the family court should deny Public First’s request for Ariel’s CPA records.
As to the adoption case records, DHS argued that the records are subject to The adoptive father made similar arguments regarding the CPA and adoption records. Family Court of the First Circuit Judge Matthew J. Viola denied disclosure. Unsealing the records with redactions would make the records “misleading,” the court concluded. See Honolulu Civ. Beat Inc. v. Dep’t of the Att’y Gen., 151 Hawaiʻi 74, 88, 508 P.3d 1160, 1174 (2022) (“When some, but not all, of a record is exempt from UIPA disclosure, the record may be entirely withheld only if the permissible redactions are so extensive that what’s left is an incomprehensible mishmash of blacked-out paragraphs, scattered words, and punctuation. If the unredactable material within a given record conveys information, it must be disclosed.“). The family court ruled that disclosure of “an incomplete and misleading record” would not contribute to “public understanding and awareness of the response of agencies and the family court to problems of child abuse and neglect[.]” Public First filed a petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition. It asks this court to order the family court to disclose the records with redactions made to any information about the Siblings. We ordered briefing and directed the family court to transmit the case records in camera for our review. DHS and the adoptive father filed responses in opposition. Judge Viola filed a response per Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 21(c), and requested specific instructions on redactions in the event the court overruled Kema. The Guardian Ad Litem for the Siblings also filed a response. As in family court, the Siblings had no objection to the release of the case records, provided their information was redacted to protect their identities. The CPA was designed to conform with federal funding requirements. Relevant federal Both federal funding sources include provisions concerning public access to confidential CPA records. Title IV-E mandates that “State policies relating to public access to court proceedings” in child abuse and neglect cases must, “at a minimum, ensure the safety and well-being of the child, parents, and family.” The Child Protective Act was enacted over forty years ago. “In 1983, Act 171 enacted the first version of the CPA, which included the Family Court Provision, and was codified as HRS chapter 587.” R Children, 145 Hawaiʻi at 484, 454 P.3d at 425 (citing 1983 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 171, at 320-45). From the start, the legislature made clear that its intent was for the CPA to operate in a way that ensures the state’s receipt of federal aid. Section 6 of Act 171 reads: It is the intent of this Act not to jeopardize the receipt of any federal aid, and to the extent, and only to the extent, necessary to effectuate this intent, the governor may modify the strict provisions of this Act, but shall promptly report any such modification with reasons therefor to the legislature. 1983 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 171, § 6 at 345. The CPA changed in 2010. That year, “Act 135 repealed HRS chapter 587 and divided its contents into the new CPA, codified as HRS chapter 587A, and the ‘Family Courts’ chapter, codified as HRS chapter 571.” R Children, 145 Hawaiʻi at 484, 454 P.3d at 425. Federal funding remained a primary concern. “The new CPA was enacted to ‘ensure[] that the Child Protective Act is in conformity with Federal Title IV-E provisions.‘” Id. (citing S.B. 2716, Conf. Com. Rep. 112-10, at 764). When the legislature amended the CPA in 2012, CAPTA’s disclosure directives were explicitly considered. In revising chapter 587A’s definition of “aggravated circumstances,” Act 28 explained that changes were “necessary to ensure the State’s compliance with [CAPTA] as well as with the state plan under [Title IV-E].” 2012 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 28, § 1 at 43. Chapter 587A’s legislative history shows that, to keep the state aligned with Title IV-E and CAPTA, the legislature intended to allow public access to confidential CPA records in certain circumstances. The parties’ main dispute involves interpretation of “Statutory interpretation starts with the statute’s words.” Alpha, Inc. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 154 Hawaiʻi 486, 490, 555 P.3d 173, 177 (2024) (citation omitted). “Our main duty is to determine and advance the legislature’s intent.” Id. Per The court shall keep a record of all child protective proceedings under this chapter. Written reports, photographs, x-rays, or other information that are submitted to the court may be made available to other appropriate persons, who are not parties, only upon an order of the court. The court may issue this order upon determining that such access is in the best interests of the child or serves some other legitimate purpose. The phrase “legitimate purpose” is undefined. Here, that creates ambiguity. See Alpha, 154 Hawaiʻi at 490-91, 555 P.3d at 177-78 (“Ambiguity arises when there is more than one plausible textual meaning.“). “To clarify ambiguity, we consider sources outside the text, such as legislative history or the purpose and spirit of the law.” Id. at 491, 555 P.3d at 178. As mentioned, chapter 587A’s legislative history confirms that a primary purpose guiding its enactment and subsequent amendments was to ensure that the state would receive federal payments under Title IV-E and CAPTA. See 1983 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 171, § 6 at 345; S.B. 2716, Conf. Com. Rep. 112-10, at 764; 2012 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 28, § 1 at 43. The federal eligibility requirements for payment under Title IV-E require states to craft a plan approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. See CAPTA also unlocks federal funding to assist state child protective services. Per Because Ariel died after being placed in foster care by DHS, Public First argued that a legitimate purpose supported public disclosure of the CPA records under We agree. We identify two legitimate purposes for public disclosure. First, allowing for disclosure of information from a CPA proceeding when a foster child has died or nearly died aligns with legislative intent and the federal mandates. See Our interpretation comports with DHS’s chapter 587A administrative rules. The legislature delegated DHS authority to “carry[] out the purposes of the Social Security Act . . . pertaining to . . . child welfare services, including the . . . making of rules . . . [as] necessary or desirable . . . for the receipt of financial assistance from the federal government.” Public access to CPA records may be warranted not only when a child has died or nearly died, but also when a child is missing or has been critically injured. Hawaiʻi Administrative Rule (HAR) § 17-1601-6 (eff. 2004) allows disclosure “pursuant to a legitimate state purpose,” like the federal law does. Cf. Second, we recognize a distinct legitimate purpose to inform and educate the public about court proceedings in CPA cases where a foster child is missing, has suffered a near fatality, been critically injured, or has died. In this sense, we agree with Judge Viola. A legitimate purpose for public disclosure of the records existed based on Ariel’s death because it “would contribute to public understanding and awareness of the response of agencies and the family court to problems of child abuse and neglect . . . and, specifically, as to how and why the Kaluas were deemed appropriate resource caregivers and ultimately adoptive parents.” Thus per The judicial power of the courts includes “control over judicial records” and the “power to administer its own records.” State v. Rogan, 156 Hawaiʻi 233, 244, 573 P.3d 616, 627 (2025) (citation omitted). Access to court records is crucial to judicial transparency and accountability. “Open courtrooms and accessible records are structural features of our judicial system. The public’s ability to watch court cases and check court records advances societal interests, like promoting transparency, ensuring fairness and accountability, enabling informed public discussion, and preserving the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. at 241, 573 P.3d at 624 (emphasis added). When “court records are available for all to read, a transparent approach instills confidence in, and respect for, the judiciary’s work.” Id. Unsealing court records in abuse and neglect cases enhances public understanding, discussion, and analysis on the practices and processes that occur in CPA proceedings. There is a presumption of confidentiality in CPA cases. See Still, Thus, we hold that a family court may find a “legitimate purpose” to disclose information from a CPA proceeding where a foster child is missing, has suffered a near fatality, been critically injured, or has died. Next, we discuss redacting the CPA and adoption records. Before public disclosure, measures to protect a child’s privacy interests must be in place. Public First maintains that redactions are possible (and required). The Siblings’ privacy rights are protected by redacting the records, Public First says. We agree. To protect the children’s privacy interests, information in the court records about the Siblings must be redacted. The legislature created the CPA to “make paramount the safety and health of children who have been harmed or are in life circumstances that threaten harm.” Judge Viola understood this. He determined that “redaction of information in the court’s CPA case file related to the Siblings could eliminate the harm that would result from public disclosure of such information.” Siblings had no objection to the requested disclosures as long as redactions protected their identities. DHS, the adoptive father, and CASA made no argument as to why redactions don’t work or how redactions fail to protect the privacy interests of the Siblings. Rather, they pointed to Kema. Because in that case disclosure of even redacted records did not serve the best interest of the Siblings, they believed Kema mandated non-disclosure. Our review of the record, however, supports redaction as a valid process to protect the Siblings’ safety and well-being and their privacy interests. The family court erred in concluding that the records should not be released because the redactions would render the disclosure of information incomplete or misleading. The completeness of the record is inconsequential when an otherwise “legitimate purpose” under When confronted with a legitimate purpose, the family court must make specific findings about why a particular record (or records) should not be disclosed. Valid grounds for non-disclosure may include that disclosure of records could result in harm to a child. See Besides redaction, the family court has other ways to protect competing interests. For instance, it may issue protective orders to restrict and limit the release of case information to the public. See Hawaiʻi Family Court Rules, Rule 26(c). Here, redactions were a viable way to protect the Siblings’ privacy interests. We overrule Kema to the extent it held that Kema held that “‘legitimate purposes’ relevant to HRS chapter 587 are limited to those that further the best interests of the children who come within the jurisdiction of the family court, pursuant to the Child Protective Act, i.e., purposes that will safeguard, treat, and provide services and plans for children in need of protection.” 91 Hawaiʻi at 205, 982 P.2d at 339 (emphasis added). The court interpreted We hold that the standard for whether a legitimate purpose exists for disclosure of CPA records is not grounded solely in the best interest of the child standard. Contra. Kema, 91 Hawaiʻi at 205, 982 P.2d at 339. Kema conflated legitimate purpose and best interest. “[L]egitimate purposes” supporting disclosure are not “limited to those that further the best interests of the children[.]” Id. Rather, the family court has procedural mechanisms available, such as redactions or protective orders, to protect the best interest of a child while also allowing appropriate disclosure. See supra Section II.A.3. A legitimate purpose for disclosure under We stress that any order by the family court to allow public access to otherwise confidential CPA case information must be made in a manner that is consistent with maintaining the safety and well-being of the child and any minor siblings. See Kema is consistent with our holding to the extent it ruled that redaction of sibling information must occur before a CPA case file involving a deceased foster child may be released under Kema collides with our holding, however, in its interpretation of “legitimate purpose” as used in the CPA. See In construing the phrase “good cause” this court has held that its construction and application depend on the circumstances of the case. See Chen v. Mah, 146 Hawaiʻi 157, 178, 457 P.3d 796, 817 (2020). “It is not possible to provide one definition of ‘good cause,’ as standards governing whether ‘good cause’ exists depend not only upon the circumstances of the individual case, but also upon the specific court rule at issue.” Id. Here, the adoption records are based on the CPA records. DHS initially placed Ariel with her foster parents. And the foster parents later adopted her. As the family court concluded, the CPA and adoption proceedings are “inextricably intertwined[.]” We hold that “good cause” exists to release adoption case records that are connected to an underlying CPA case when an adopted foster child “is missing, has suffered a near fatality, been critically injured, or has died.” HAR § 17-1601-6(16)(D). This interpretation aligns with federal law. See We also hold that if there is good cause, the family court has the authority and discretion to order the unsealing of adoption We grant Public First’s petition as to its requested relief for public access to the redacted records in the CPA and adoption cases. This court “has general supervisory powers over the state’s lower courts.” Rivera v. Cataldo, 153 Hawaiʻi 320, 324, 537 P.3d 1167, 1171 (2023). “When issues of ‘considerable public importance’ are at stake, we may exercise our supervisory power.” Id. The use of these supervisory powers is appropriate here to provide the family courts with direction on “a procedural and substantive matter of public importance.” Gannett Pac. Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 227, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978). Clarity is needed on the standard governing the disclosure of confidential case records from CPA and adoption proceedings where a child is missing, has suffered a near fatality, been critically injured, or has died and the public requests access to the case records or information. Thus, exercising our supervisory powers, we redact and release the case records from FC-S 18-00280 and FC-A 21-1-6010. So we deny the petition for relief. It’s moot. Pursuant to our supervisory jurisdiction and authority under Redactions include: The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall provide a copy of the redacted records to the Siblings’ counsel, DHS, adoptive father’s counsel, and CASA who shall then have thirty days from today to file any objection to the disclosure of specific information identified in the redacted case records. Any objection shall identify the legal or factual basis for the objection and the applicable volume and PDF page number. If the objection refers to confidential information, it may be filed under seal, and a redacted version of the objection shall also be filed on the public record. After any objections are resolved by this court, redacted copies of the case files will be publicly filed. We understand the substantial burden on family courts to address valid requests like this and to prepare redacted case files. We hold that the family court has inherent powers to order DHS to prepare redacted versions of case filings. See For instance, family courts may order that: Last, we note that the petition did not seek any relief as to the unsealing of the miscellaneous proceedings initiated by Public First to access Ariel’s CPA and adoption case records. See 1FFM-24-0000019 (moving to unseal CPA records); 1FFM-24-0000018 (moving to unseal adoption records). Some records filed in these miscellaneous proceedings identify the Siblings, including their years of birth, initials, and other information. To support its order, the family court details personal information about the Siblings in the case files. See 1FFM-24-0000019 Dkt. 59:10, ¶ 39. Also, DHS’s opposition discloses their birth years and initials. If a motion to unseal these miscellaneous proceedings is filed in the family court, then this information should be redacted. We refer to the Permanent Committee on Family Court Rules a request to draft proposed rule amendments governing the process for the disclosure of confidential CPA or adoption records where the party requesting access has established that a child “is missing, has suffered a near fatality, been critically injured, or has died.” HAR § 17-1601-6(16)(D). Robert Brian Black and Benjamin M. Creps (on the briefs) for petitioner Randall S. Nishiyama and Alyssa-Marie Y. Kau (on the briefs) for respondent Judge Julio C. Herrera, Kurt J. Shimamoto, James W. Walther, and Lynne M. Youmans (on the briefs) for respondent Department of Human Services, State of Hawaiʻi Francis T. O‘Brien (on the briefs) for respondent Isaac Kalua III Dean T. Nagamine (on the briefs) Guardian Ad Litem Arlene A. Harada-Brown (on the briefs) Guardian Ad Litem Craig Y. Iha and Chase S.L. Suzumoto (on the briefs) for respondent Court Appointed Special Advocates Program /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza /s/ Vladimir P. DevensII.
A. The Child Protective Act Records May Be Released
1. The Legislative History of Chapter 587A
2. Disclosure of information and records from a Child Protective Act case following the death of a child in foster care constitutes a “legitimate purpose” under
3. Redactions of the court records protect the Siblings’ privacy interests
4. We overrule Kema to the extent it equates the best interest of the child with “legitimate purposes” under
B. The adoption records may be unsealed based on good cause
III.