In re T.C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 28295 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I ", ~:1'6 -':::> IN THE INTEREST OF T.C., a Minor C :::0 ;;;1 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (FC-J NO. 0063853) ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Duffy, J., for the court 1 ) On November 5, 2009, Petitioners/Parents-Appellants (Parents) filed an application for writ of certiorari seeking further review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals' June 24, 2009 opinion in In re TC, No. 28295, and September 3, 2009 judgment on appeal. This court has previously stated that "[b]ecause standing is a jurisdictional issue that may be addressed at any stage of a case, an appellate court has jurisdiction to resolve questions regarding standing, even if that determination ultimately precludes jurisdiction over the merits." Keahole Defense Coal., Inc. v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res., 110 Hawai'i 419, 427-28, 134 P.3d 585, 593-94 (2006). Additionally, "[i]n the absence of well recognized exceptions, this court has clearly held that rights may not be vicariously asserted.'" Freitas v. Admin. Dir. of Courts, 104 Hawai'i 483, 486, 92 P.3d 993, (footnote omitted) '[c]onstitutional 996 (2004) (quoting Kaneohe Bay Cruises, Inc. v. Hirata, 75 Haw. 250, 256, 861 P.2d 1, 9 (1993)). "Exceptions to the rule against vicarious assertion of constitutional rights include the right to privacy and First Amendment rights." Tauese v. State, Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 113 Hawai'i 1, 28, 147 P.3d 1 JJ. Considered by: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, 785, 812 (2006) (citing Freitas, 104 Hawai'i at 486 n.6, at 996 n.6); see also State v. Kam, 69 Haw. 483, 92 P.3d 488, 748 P.2d 372, 375 (1988). Parents do not argue that they fall within any exception recognized by this court to the rule against vicarious assertion of constitutional rights. Further, Parents do not indicate why TC cannot assert his own constitutional rights, as he did when he was represented by counsel before the Family Court and the ICA. Indeed, TC did file a timely application for writ of certiorari on December 1, 2009. As Parents have not demonstrated that they have standing to vicariously assert the constitutional rights of TC in the questions presented to this court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Parents' application is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 9, 2009. FOR THE COURT: ~~~ . .D~/~ Associate Justice Christopher J. Roehrig for petitioners/parents appellants on the application 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
