No. SCWC-22-0000357, Thursday, November 14, 2024, 10:30 a.m.

KP, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. EM, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

[ Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format ]

[ Watch the video recording on YouTube]

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 livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ʻŌlelo Community Television olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant KP:
     Peter Van Name Esser and Mary Malone

Attorneys for Respondent/Respondent-Appellee EM:
     Bernard M. Herren of Cain & Herren, ALC 

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari filed 09/04/24.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

This appeal arises from a custody dispute between Petitioner-Appellant KP (Mother) and Respondent-Appellee EM (Father) over their two minor children.

Mother filed a petition seeking sole legal and physical custody of the children.  In response, Father sought custody of the children and permission to relocate with them to Utah.  At trial, the Family Court sustained multiple objections to portions of expert and lay testimony regarding the credibility of the children’s alleged disclosures of sex abuse, in part on hearsay grounds and in part citing to State v. Batangan, 71 Hawai‘i 552, 779 P.2d 48 (1990). 

On March 28, 2022, the Family Court issued an order dissolving a previous Family Court judge’s protective order against Father; granting Father sole legal and physical custody of the children with relocation to Utah; and awarding Mother visitation.  Mother filed a motion for reconsideration, clarification and further hearing, which the Family Court denied.

Mother appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which affirmed the Family Court.

This court granted Mother’s application for writ of certiorari, which raises the following questions:

Whether the ICA committed grave error by affirming the Family Court’s ruling dissolving a prior judge’s protective order based on Father’s threat of sex abuse to his children, granting him sole custody and relocation to Utah, and limiting Mother to supervised visitation.

Whether the ICA committed grave error by affirming the Family Court’s refusal to consider testimony of experts relevant to the credibility of the children’s disclosures of sex abuse and Mother’s good faith, and denying Mother’s motion for further hearing to address whether relocation was in the best interest of the children.