In re: A.M., S.M. and M.M.

── In re: A.M., S.M. and M.M. ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 29-APR-2026 08:05 AM Dkt. 80 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I IN THE INTEREST OF A.M., S.M., and M.M. APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (CASE NO. FC-S 22-00027) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.) Father-Appellant (Father) appeals from the "Amended Order Terminating the Parental Rights of [Mother-Appellee (Mother)] and [Father] and Awarding Permanent Custody ([Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter] 587A" (Termination Order), entered by the Family Court of the Fifth Circuit (family court) on June 9, 2025. 1 The Termination Order terminated Mother's 2 and 1 The Honorable Stephanie R.S. Char presided. 2 Mother is a nominal appellee to this appeal.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Father's respective parental rights to their minor children A.M., S.M., and M.M. (collectively, the Children). Father raises four points of error on appeal, contending that the family court erred: (1) because findings of fact (FOFs) 1(c), 1(f), 41(a), 45, 50, and 87 are clearly erroneous; (2) "by allowing questioning beyond the scope of direct examination and questioning in an impermissible manner"; (3) "by refusing to allow questioning consistent with HRS § 587A-21(d) and [the] parents' due process rights"; and (4) "in terminating [the] parents' parental rights and adopting the permanent plan, as there was not clear and convincing evidence that the permanent plan was in the [C]hildren's best interests." Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and relevant legal authorities, 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: (1) Father challenges portions of FOFs 1(c), 1(f), 41(a), 45, 50, and 87 3 of the Termination Order. "[FOFs] are 3 The portions of these FOFs that Father challenges are as follows: [1(c).] The proposed permanent plan, dated January 21, 2025 is in the best interests of the [C]hildren. . . . . [1(f).] Under the circumstances that are presented in this case, DHS has made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan which in this case is permanent out of home placement. (continued . . .) 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER reviewed under the 'clearly erroneous' standard." In re JK, 149 Hawaiʻi 400, 406, 491 P.3d 1179, 1185 (App. 2021) (citation omitted). To the extent some of these paragraphs can be construed as mixed questions of fact and law, "we review [mixed questions of fact and law] under the 'clearly erroneous' standard because the court's conclusions are dependent on the 3(. . . continued) . . . . [41(a).] The court met with [A.M.] on November 8, 2024 in an in chambers interview. . . . This 8-year old child had an incredible grasp on what was happening (and has happened) to her and her