Background
Father appealed the Family Court of the First Circuit’s September 3, 2024 order terminating his parental rights to T.A. and its accompanying findings and conclusions. He argued that the court improperly converted a voluntary foster-custody arrangement into involuntary proceedings, that the Department of Human Services (DHS) had not proved he could not provide a safe family home within a reasonable time, and that the permanent plan was legally deficient.
The record reflected sustained concerns about Father’s conduct and engagement with services. Although he completed some services, DHS reported that he remained combative and threatening toward agency staff and providers, lacked insight into the child’s needs and his anger, and did not consistently participate in recommended therapy and other services. Two DHS employees obtained temporary restraining and harassment injunctions against him in April 2024.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. It lacked jurisdiction to review the March 2023 foster-custody award because that was a final, appealable order and Father’s 2024 appeal was untimely as to it.
The court further held that the family court did not err in finding Father unable to provide a safe family home within the statutory two-year period. Father’s challenges to most findings were unsupported and the appellate record included an incomplete termination-trial transcript. A mistaken 2023 date in one finding was harmless. The court also rejected Father’s challenge to the permanent plan: the plan, as amended, specified adoption placement by December 2024, and no cited statute made an expired plan timeline legally deficient.
Key Takeaways
- A foster-custody order is final and must be appealed on time; a later termination appeal does not reopen that order.
- Unsupported factual challenges and an incomplete appellate record do not establish error in termination proceedings.
- Under Hawaii law, parents have two years after foster-custody entry to become willing and able to provide a safe family home.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of timely appeals in child-protective cases and of preserving a complete record for appellate review. It also illustrates that partial participation in services will not preclude termination where the evidence supports continuing safety concerns and no reasonable prospect of a safe family home within the statutory period.