Summary
This Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii summary disposition order affirms a Family Court judgment regarding permanent custody, timesharing, and a parent coordinator. The appellant father challenged the trial court's approval of his hybrid self-representation, alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, claimed he was improperly allowed to practice law without a license, and disputed the factual findings and expert testimony reliance. The appellate court rejected all arguments, finding that limited scope representation was permitted under court rules, self-representation rights apply, and the trial court properly weighed witness credibility and applied the statutory best-interest-of-the-child factors.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Family Court abused its discretion in approving limited representation of Father under HFCR Rule 11.1(a).
- Whether Father’s counsel was ineffective for allowing Father to serve as co‑counsel at trial.
- Whether the Family Court erred by allowing Father to practice law without a license.
- Whether the Family Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were unsupported by the record.
- Whether the Family Court improperly substituted its own opinions for those of expert witnesses.
Holdings
- The Family Court did not abuse its discretion; limited representation for appearances is permitted by HFCR Rule 11.1(a) and does not require court approval.
- The claim of ineffective assistance fails; no authority recognizes such a claim in a child‑custody case where the party retained counsel.
- No plain error; HRS §605‑2 (2016) permits self‑representation in civil proceedings.
- The findings and conclusions are affirmed; appellate courts do not re‑evaluate credibility or weight of evidence.
- The Family Court properly considered expert testimony and did not substitute its own opinion; the error claim is unsupported.
Key quotations
“It is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact.”
Factual background
Father and Mother are the parents of a child born in 2016. They lived in Colorado and executed a Stipulated Parenting Plan in April 2019, which was filed in the Jefferson County District Court along with a support order. The parties later relocated to Hawaii and the Family Court entered custody and support orders in 2024.
Procedural history
The Family Court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment on permanent custody, timesharing schedule, and parent coordinator on February 23, 2024, entered judgment April 8, 2024. Father appealed on March 22, 2024 raising five points of error.