JK v. HK

── JK v. HK ── Court: Hawaii Supreme Court Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General ** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX 18-MAY-2026 10:37 AM Dkt. 22 OP IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---o0o--- ________________________________________________________________ JK, Appellant, vs. HK; NS; and CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1FPA-XX-XXXXXXX) May 18, 2026 DEVENS, C.J., McKENNA, EDDINS, AND GINOZA, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE MALINAO, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCY OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J. I. Introduction This transfer case arises from a May 20, 2024 amended parentage petition, in which the Family Court of the First Circuit (“family court”) 1 concluded in its November 20, 2024 1 The Honorable Jessi L.K. Hall presided. 1  ** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER** findings of fact (“FOFs”) and conclusions of law (“COLs”) that an unmarried woman without a biological connection to the child could not be a legal parent as a matter of law. JK (pseudonym “Ava”) and HK (pseudonym “Bailey”), both women, were in a long-term relationship and had a child together (pseudonym “Kai”). After Ava and Bailey separated, Bailey began restricting Ava’s visitation with Kai. Ava then filed this petition to establish legal parentage over Kai based on Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 584-4(a)(4) (2018), (the “holding out presumption”) of paternity: HRS § 584-4 Presumption of paternity. (a) A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if: . . . . (4) While the child is under the age of majority, he receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child[.] Although, on its face, HRS § 584-4(a) applies only to a male parent, in LC v. MG & Child Support Enf’t Agency, 143 Hawai‘i 302, 430 P.3d 400 (2018), this court discussed the interplay between the paternity presumptions of HRS § 584-4 (2018) and the gender neutrality provision of HRS § 584-21 (2018). 143 Hawaiʻi at 312, 430 P.3d at 410. This court noted that despite the gender-specific language of HRS § 584-4, HRS § 584-21 requires that in actions “‘to determine the existence or nonexistence of a mother and child relationship[, i]nsofar as practicable, the provisions of the [Uniform Parentage Act 2  ** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER** (“UPA”), HRS Chapter 584] applicable to the father and child relationship shall apply.’” Id. (cleaned up). Hence, this court held that “despite the gender-specific language [of the paternity presumptions] in HRS § 584-4(a), the presumptions of paternity equally apply in determining the existence or nonexistence of a mother-child relationship.” Id. The family court concluded LC did not apply here because LC involved the application of gender-neutral language required by the Marriage Equality A