Background
After a contested return hearing, the Family Court of the First Circuit awarded foster custody of A.G. to the Hawaii Department of Human Services. A.G. was born prematurely in Hawaiʻi and required supplemental oxygen and other medical support.
Mother appealed, and Father cross-appealed. They argued that the evidence did not support the family court’s jurisdiction or its finding that they could not provide a safe family home, that the court relied on facts not in evidence and shifted DHS’s burden of proof, and that DHS had not made reasonable reunification efforts.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the February 26, 2026 foster-custody order. It held that substantial evidence—including the DHS social worker’s testimony and DHS reports admitted under HRS § 587A-18—supported the challenged findings concerning the child’s medical needs, the parents’ housing and mental-health-related concerns, and their ability or willingness to provide a safe family home.
The court rejected the claim that the family court shifted the burden of proof. The findings that the parents had not provided evidence of stable housing, consistent mental-health treatment, or medical authorization for marijuana reflected the family court’s assessment of their response to DHS’s evidence, not an improper transfer of DHS’s burden. The court also held that DHS made reasonable efforts and that Hawaiʻi had jurisdiction because A.G. was born in and never left the state.
Key Takeaways
- Child-protection reports filed under HRS § 587A-18 may be admitted and considered for their probative value when parties may examine or cross-examine the preparer.
- A finding that parents did not rebut DHS’s safety evidence does not itself improperly shift DHS’s burden of proof.
- Hawaiʻi had child-protection jurisdiction because the child was found in the state when the relevant circumstances occurred, were discovered, or were reported.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference appellate courts give family-court findings supported by credible evidence, especially where the findings turn on witness credibility and a medically fragile child’s immediate safety needs.
It also confirms that a child’s presence in Hawaiʻi can establish jurisdiction in a child-protective proceeding even when the parents contend their residence is elsewhere.