In re: L.B.

── In re: L.B. ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 29-MAY-2026 07:58 AM Dkt. 74 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I IN THE INTEREST OF L.B. APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (FC-S NO. 24-00063) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Guidry and Gluck, JJ.) Mother-Appellant J.B. (Mother) appeals from the Family Court of the First Circuit's (Family Court) August 5, 2025 "Order Granting the Department of Human Services [(DHS)] Child Welfare Section's Request for Temporary Placement of the Child with [D.B.] in California" (Order). 1 As the title of the Order suggests, the Family Court granted DHS's request that Mother's minor child, L.B., be temporarily placed with L.B.'s maternal aunt, D.B., in California. Mother appeals, contending that "[t]here was not sufficient evidence for the [Family Court] to have found by preponderance of the evidence that it was in the best interest of the child to be relocated, and in clear violation of reasonable efforts to reunify, as erroneously found 1 The Honorable Courtney N. Naso presided.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER on Findings of Fact ('FOF') paragraphs 61, 62, 67, and Conclusions of Law ('COL') paragraph 16." Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Mother's contentions as follows. (1) COL 16 (Jurisdiction): Mother contends that the Family Court's COL 16 was erroneous. In COL 16, the Family Court concluded that Mother's Notice of Appeal (which had been filed prior to the Family Court's entry of its FOFs and COLs) "should be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction since it is premature as it attempts to appeal an order that is not a final order and it attempts to appeal the interlocutory order, despite Mother not seeking or obtaining allowance from [the Family Court] to file an interlocutory appeal." Both Mother and DHS contend that this court has jurisdiction to review the Order; Appellee-Guardian Ad Litem does not address jurisdiction in its brief. We agree with Mother and DHS that we have jurisdiction to review Mother's appeal. Mother has been incarcerated and/or placed at the Hawaiʻi State Hospital since May 2024, and therefore has not had physical custody of L.B. for the last two years. L.B. entered foster custody in July 2024. Therefore, the principal effect of the Family Court's August 5, 2025 Order was not a change in Mother's custody of L.B., but a change in placement of L.B. (allowing D.B. to take L.B. to California). Nevertheless, the Order still made a custody determination: the Order provided that "[i]t is contrary to the immediate welfare of [L.B.] to remain in the family home (specifically with Mother)" and that "Mother is not willing or able to provide a safe family home for [L.B.], even with the assistance of a Family Service Plan." This is precisely the type of periodic 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER review of a custody arrangement that is appealable. As the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court explained in In re Doe, 77 Hawaiʻi 109, 115, 883 P.2d 30, 36 (1994), in reviewing cases from other jurisdictions: The [Arizona Supreme Court] h