 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] In re Doe6/14/2004
This Child Protective Act case involves a family with the following members: the paternal grandfather (Grandfather); the paternal grandmother (Grandmother); the father (Father); the mother (Mother); the following children of Father's deceased brother and Mother: Half-Brother; Half-Sister 1; and Half-Sister 2; and the following children of Father and Mother: Adult Sister; Jane Doe I, born on January 3, 1987; John Doe, born on November 17, 1988; and Jane Doe II, born on December 20, 1996. In this opinion, we will refer to Jane Doe I, John Doe, and Jane Doe II as the "three minor children". Grandfather, Grandmother, Father, Mother, Adult Sister and the three minor children all live in one home (Home).
Father appeals from the following orders entered in the Family Court of the First Circuit, Judge Kenneth E. Enright, presiding:
1. The May 22, 2002 Orders Concerning Child Protective Act awarding to the State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services (DHS) foster custody of the three minor children and ordering the March 6, 2002 Family Service Plan (March 6, 2002 FSP) into effect.
2. The July 10, 2002 Orders Concerning Child Protective Act denying Father's motion for reconsideration and entering further orders.
We affirm.
In his opening brief, Father presents the following points on appeal:
1. The trial court erred when it denied ather's motion for advanced costs to depose [Half-Sister 1] in Oregon.
2. The trial court erred when it allowed Ms. Diamond [Hinda L. Diamond, MSW, DHS Social Worker] to rely upon statements made to her by [Half-Sister 1].
3. The evidence is insufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ather or other harmed or threatened to harm their three [minor] children.
4. The weight of the evidence is against any physical harm to [Jane Doe I] by other or ather.
5. The weight of the evidence is against any physical harm to [John Doe] or [Jane Doe II] by other or ather.
6. The lower court could have preserved the family home for the children by ordering the removal of [Grandfather].
In his opening brief, however, Father presents only the following arguments:
A. FATHER-APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN THE LOWER COURT DENIED HIS REQUEST FOR ADVANCED COSTS TO DEPOSE [HALF-SISTER 1] IN OREGON.
B. THE TRIAL COURT WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS IN FINDING THAT THE RECORD CONTAINED A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE THREE [MINOR] CHILDREN WERE HARMED OR THREATENED WITH HARM BY FATHER, MOTHER, OR GRANDFATHER.
C. THE TRIAL COURT CLEARLY ERRED BY FINDING PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM TO [JANE DOE I] BY FATHER, MOTHER, OR GRANDFATHER BY THE MASSAGING OF GRANDFATHER'S BUTTOCKS BY [JANE DOE I] BECAUSE NO EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED.
The Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP), Rule 28(b) (2004) requires all opening briefs to contain various items, including the following:
(4) A concise statement of the points of error set forth in separately numbered paragraphs. Each point shall state: (i) the alleged error committed by the court or agency; (ii) where in the record the alleged error occurred; and (iii) where in the record the alleged error was objected to or the manner in which the alleged error was brought to the attention of the court or agency. Where applicable, each point shall also include the following: . . . .
(C) hen the point involves a finding or conclusion of the court or agency, a quotation of the finding or conclusion urged as error;
Points not presented in accordance with
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|