IN THE INTEREST OF T.J., I.T., A.T.1, and K.T.2.
IN THE INTEREST OF L.T.

Listen to the audio recording

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Father-Appellant K.T.:
     Leigh Woodruff

Attorneys for Respondent/Petitioner-Appellee DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES:
     Eric J. Alabanza, Julio C. Herrera, Ian T. Tsuda, Erin K. Torres, and Lauren K. Chun, Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Appellee Guardian Ad Litem MAKIA MINERBI:
     Jamie L. Demello, Jessica C.M. Uchida, and Scott K.D. Shishido of Legal Aid Society of Hawaii

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 09/09/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Fa‘auuga To‘oto‘o, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, filed 09/09/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/15/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge To‘oto‘o, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused.

Brief Description:
The Department of Human Services (DHS) filed two petitions for foster custody of Father’s children after receiving reports of sexual abuse by Father.

Prior to trial, DHS submitted family service plans (collectively, Service Plan) recommending sexual abuse treatment services for Father. In relevant part, the Service Plan required Father to admit that he engaged in sexual abuse.

Following a two-day trial, the family court awarded DHS foster custody and incorporated the Service Plan into the family court’s final “Orders Concerning Child Protective Act.”

Father appealed the family court’s decision and orders to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA). The ICA affirmed the family court. Father subsequently appealed to this court.

There are two issues before the court:

• Does the Service Plan implicate and infringe on Father’s right to free speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 4 of the Hawai‘i Constitution?
• Does the Service Plan implicate and infringe on Father’s right against self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Hawai‘i Constitution?