Father motion in Hawaii

2026The outcome of this hearing should determine whether the further remedy of a new trial is necessary." (citing Kane, 52 Haw. at 488, 479 P.2d at 210)).

2026The outcome of this hearing should determine whether the further remedy of a new trial is necessary." (citing Kane, 52 Haw. at 488, 479 P.2d at 210)).

2026See In re I Child., 153 Hawaiʻi 223, 225, 529 P.3d 701, 703 (App. 2023) ("Because the required examination did not occur, we remand these cases to the Family Court for a hearing on the basis of Father's request for new counsel and a determination as to whether Father's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has merit.

2026See In re I Child., 153 Hawaiʻi 223, 225, 529 P.3d 701, 703 (App. 2023) ("Because the required examination did not occur, we remand these cases to the Family Court for a hearing on the basis of Father's request for new counsel and a determination as to whether Father's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has merit.

2025The supreme court stated: "As in most child sexual abuse cases, where the only evidence consists of the victim's accusation and the defendant's denial, expert testimony on the question of who to believe is nothing more than advice to jurors on how to decide the case." Id. at 559 , 799 P.2d at 52 (quotation mark omitted).

2025The supreme court stated: "As in most child sexual abuse cases, where the only evidence consists of the victim's accusation and the defendant's denial, expert testimony on the question of who to believe is nothing more than advice to jurors on how to decide the case." Id. at 559 , 799 P.2d at 52 (quotation mark omitted).

2023In re AA, 150 Hawai‘i 270, 284-89, 500 P.3d 455, 469-74 (2021).

2023See Doe, 100 Hawai‘i at 343, 60 P.3d at 293 .

2022See HRCP 59(e); Ass'n of Apartment 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., Ltd., 100 Hawai#i 97, 110, 58 P.3d 608, 621 (2002).

2021See Glynn v. EDO Corp., 641 F.Supp.2d 476, 486-87 (D.

2021See Lamarche v. Lussier, 844 N.E.2d 1115, 1119-20 (Mass.App.Ct. 2006) (holding nonresident father did not waive his jurisdictional challenge by appearing personally for a hearing where he challenged personal jurisdiction at the outset and throughout the proceedings prior to his appearance); see also Donaldson v. Donaldson, 729 P.2d 426, 429 (Idaho Ct.App. 1986) (holding nonresident husband did not waive jurisdictional challenge by signing a stipulation on the merits of child support and attorney fees after his motion to dismiss had been denied); cf. Puckett, 94 Hawai#i at 480, 16 P.3d at 885 (

2021See Lamarche v. Lussier, 844 N.E.2d 1115, 1119-20 (Mass.App.Ct. 2006) (holding nonresident father did not waive his jurisdictional challenge by appearing personally for a hearing where he challenged personal jurisdiction at the outset and throughout the proceedings prior to his appearance); see also Donaldson v. Donaldson, 729 P.2d 426, 429 (Idaho Ct.App. 1986) (holding nonresident husband did not waive jurisdictional challenge by signing a stipulation on the merits of child support and attorney fees after his motion to dismiss had been denied); cf. Puckett, 94 Hawai#i at 480, 16 P.3d at 885 (

2021See Lamarche v. Lussier, 844 N.E.2d 1115, 1119-20 (Mass.App.Ct. 2006) (holding nonresident father did not waive his jurisdictional challenge by appearing personally for a hearing where he challenged personal jurisdiction at the outset and throughout the proceedings prior to his appearance); see also Donaldson v. Donaldson, 729 P.2d 426, 429 (Idaho Ct.App. 1986) (holding nonresident husband did not waive jurisdictional challenge by signing a stipulation on the merits of child support and attorney fees after his motion to dismiss had been denied); cf. Puckett, 94 Hawai#i at 480, 16 P.3d at 885 (

2020Id. (citing Lowther v. Lowther, 99 Hawaiʻi 569, 578, 57 P.3d 494, 503 (App. 2002)).

2020Id.

2020Counsel most probably could have been of assistance in Father’s motion for reconsideration. 46 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER *** cross-examination.” State v. Maluia, 107 Hawaiʻi 20, 32, 108 P.3d 974, 986 (2005) (quoting Alford v. United States, 283 U.S. 687, 692 (1931)).

2020To the extent Father argues the evidence supporting the family court’s findings and conclusions was not credible, appellate courts “will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence . . . .” Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawaiʻi 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360 (2006).

2014In re Kurowski, 161 N.H. 578 , 20 A3d 306, 320-21 (2011) (“When applying the best interests standard to decide a parenting rights and responsibilities matter, the trial court may consider a parent’s religious training of his or her child solely in relation to the welfare of the child.”); Jordan, 212 P.3d at 929 (“[T]he court must consider whether it is in the best interests of the children to continue attending the private religious school or transfer to another school.”); see also Karetny v. Karetny, 283 A.D.2d 250, 251 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 410 (N.Y.App.Div.2001) (affirming the lower court’s findin

2014In re Kurowski, 161 N.H. 578 , 20 A3d 306, 320-21 (2011) (“When applying the best interests standard to decide a parenting rights and responsibilities matter, the trial court may consider a parent’s religious training of his or her child solely in relation to the welfare of the child.”); Jordan, 212 P.3d at 929 (“[T]he court must consider whether it is in the best interests of the children to continue attending the private religious school or transfer to another school.”); see also Karetny v. Karetny, 283 A.D.2d 250, 251 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 410 (N.Y.App.Div.2001) (affirming the lower court’s findin

2014In re Kurowski, 161 N.H. 578 , 20 A3d 306, 320-21 (2011) (“When applying the best interests standard to decide a parenting rights and responsibilities matter, the trial court may consider a parent’s religious training of his or her child solely in relation to the welfare of the child.”); Jordan, 212 P.3d at 929 (“[T]he court must consider whether it is in the best interests of the children to continue attending the private religious school or transfer to another school.”); see also Karetny v. Karetny, 283 A.D.2d 250, 251 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 410 (N.Y.App.Div.2001) (affirming the lower court’s findin

2014In re Kurowski, 161 N.H. 578 , 20 A3d 306, 320-21 (2011) (“When applying the best interests standard to decide a parenting rights and responsibilities matter, the trial court may consider a parent’s religious training of his or her child solely in relation to the welfare of the child.”); Jordan, 212 P.3d at 929 (“[T]he court must consider whether it is in the best interests of the children to continue attending the private religious school or transfer to another school.”); see also Karetny v. Karetny, 283 A.D.2d 250, 251 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 410 (N.Y.App.Div.2001) (affirming the lower court’s findin

2014In re Kurowski, 161 N.H. 578 , 20 A3d 306, 320-21 (2011) (“When applying the best interests standard to decide a parenting rights and responsibilities matter, the trial court may consider a parent’s religious training of his or her child solely in relation to the welfare of the child.”); Jordan, 212 P.3d at 929 (“[T]he court must consider whether it is in the best interests of the children to continue attending the private religious school or transfer to another school.”); see also Karetny v. Karetny, 283 A.D.2d 250, 251 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 410 (N.Y.App.Div.2001) (affirming the lower court’s findin

2014In re Kurowski, 161 N.H. 578 , 20 A3d 306, 320-21 (2011) (“When applying the best interests standard to decide a parenting rights and responsibilities matter, the trial court may consider a parent’s religious training of his or her child solely in relation to the welfare of the child.”); Jordan, 212 P.3d at 929 (“[T]he court must consider whether it is in the best interests of the children to continue attending the private religious school or transfer to another school.”); see also Karetny v. Karetny, 283 A.D.2d 250, 251 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 410 (N.Y.App.Div.2001) (affirming the lower court’s findin

2008Father did not include the transcript of the hearing on Father's motion to remove Acain, and he thus failed to meet his burden of demonstrating "error by reference to matters in the record." State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai`i 333, 334, 3 P.3d 499, 500 (2000). "[W]e will not presume error from a silent record." Id. at 336, 3 P.3d at 502 . 6.

2008Father did not include the transcript of the hearing on Father's motion to remove Acain, and he thus failed to meet his burden of demonstrating "error by reference to matters in the record." State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai`i 333, 334, 3 P.3d 499, 500 (2000). "[W]e will not presume error from a silent record." Id. at 336, 3 P.3d at 502 . 6.

2008See In re T.H., 112 Hawai`i 331, 335, 145 P.3d 874 , 878 (App. 2006); In re Doe, 102 Hawai`i 335, 339-44, 76 P.3d 578, 582-87 (App. 2003). (2) & (3) Father admits that he was "sentenced to a period of life without parole," and is "incarcerated at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas." [3] After an extensive colloquy between Father and the Family Court, Father stipulated to the Family Court's findings of parental unfitness under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 587-73(a)(1) and (2).

2008See In re T.H., 112 Hawai`i 331, 335, 145 P.3d 874 , 878 (App. 2006); In re Doe, 102 Hawai`i 335, 339-44, 76 P.3d 578, 582-87 (App. 2003). (2) & (3) Father admits that he was "sentenced to a period of life without parole," and is "incarcerated at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas." [3] After an extensive colloquy between Father and the Family Court, Father stipulated to the Family Court's findings of parental unfitness under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 587-73(a)(1) and (2).

1970See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 , 64 S.Ct. 438, 442 , 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944), where the United States Supreme Court stated, "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, * * *." [7] I believe HRS § 578-2 to the extent that it does not require the consent of or notice to a putative father of a hearing of the adoption of his illegitimate child, is constitutional suspect.

1970See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 , 64 S.Ct. 438, 442 , 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944), where the United States Supreme Court stated, "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, * * *." [7] I believe HRS § 578-2 to the extent that it does not require the consent of or notice to a putative father of a hearing of the adoption of his illegitimate child, is constitutional suspect.