NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (FC-S NO. 10-00193)
Leslie C. Maharaj for Father-Appellant.
Robert T. Nakatsuji Deputy Solicitor General, Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawai'i, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Francis T. O'Brien for Appellee Laura Ozak, Court Appointed Special Advocate.
Foley, Presiding Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Father-Appellant (Father) appeals from the Family Court of the First Circuit's (Family Court's) Order Terminating Parental Rights, filed on December 10, 2012, and also challenges the Family Court's November 30, 2012 Decision Regarding Trial on Motion to Terminate Parental Rights and the December 10, 2 012 Letters of Permanent Custody. The Family Court terminated Father's parental rights to KH and JH (the Children), appointed the Director of the Department of Human Resources (DHS) to be permanent custodian of the Children, and approved DHS's Permanent Plan (6/2/12 Permanent Plan).
On appeal, Father appears to argue that the Family Court abused its discretion in terminating his parental rights where the Findings of Facts (FOF) in the court's January 25, 2013 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOF/COL) weighed in his favor, he should have been given more time to complete his services, and various of the FOFs are clearly erroneous and certain of the the COLS are wrong. Father contests FOFs 64, 93, 94, 97, 98, 101, 132, 133, 134, 137, 143, 144, 148, 149, and 152, and COLs 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Father's points of error as follows:
Father has failed to include the information required, by the Rules Expediting Child Protective Appeals (RECPA). Rule 11(a)(3) in his Points of Error Section. See RECPA Rule 11(a)(3). Further, although he apparently contests numerous FOFs and COLs, he provides no discernible argument with regard to them. See RECPA Rule 11(a)(4). Consequently, his points are waived. See Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rules 28(b)(4) & (7). Regardless, to the extent Father's points can be discerned, they lack merit.
The Family Court did not clearly err in concluding that Father was not willing and able to provide the Children with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a service plan, and it was not reasonably foreseeable that he would become willing and able to do so within a reasonable period of time; and FOFs 64/ 132, 133, and 134 are not clearly erroneous and COLs 1 and 2 are not wrong. See Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 587A-7 (Supp. 2012); In re Doe, 95 Hawai'i 183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001); In re Doe, 100 Hawai'i 335, 345, . 60 P.3d 285, 295 (2002).
Based on the record in this case, we conclude that the Family Court did not clearly err in concluding that the 6/2/12 Permanent Plan was in the Children's best interests, FOF 13 7 is not clearly erroneous, and COLs 5 and 6 are not wrong. See HRS § 587A-33 (a) (3) (B). (Supp. 2012); In re Doe, 95 Hawai'i at 190, 20 P.3d at 623.
The Family Court did not clearly err in concluding that DHS gave Father a reasonable amount of time in which to remedy the problems that put the Children at substantial risk of being harmed in the family home and to reunify with the Children; and FOFs 143, 144, 148, and 149 are not clearly erroneous. See HRS §§ 587A-31(g) (Supp. 2012) & -33(a)(2) (Supp. 2012).
The remaining contested FOFs and COLs do not express the court's ultimate determinations. FOFs 93, 94, 97, 98, 101, and 152 are not clearly erroneous and COLs 8 and 9 are not wrong. See ...