In re Doe Children
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 23611 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I IN THE INTEREST OF DOE CHILDREN: JOHN DOE Born on November 13, 1990 JOHN DOE Born on June 3, 1992 (NO. 23611 (FC-S NO. 97-04815)) ----------------------------------------------------------------IN THE INTEREST OF JANE DOE Born May 20, 1993 (NO. 23612 (FC-S NO. 97-04816)) ----------------------------------------------------------------IN THE INTEREST OF JOHN DOE Born December 8, 1994 (NO. 23613 (FC-S NO. 97-04817)) APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (FC-S NOS. 97-04815, 97-04816, & 97-04817) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon consideration of father-appellant's motion for reconsideration of the November 21, 2000 order dismissing appeal, the papers in support and the record, it appears that fatherappellant's assertion that he orally joined in mother's motion for reconsideration and that the family court reconsidered the May 26, 2000 orders as to both mother and father is not supported by the record before this court. Father-appellant has not provided this court with a transcript of the reconsideration hearing that may reflect more than what the record shows. Even if father-appellant orally joined in mother's motion for reconsideration, the joinder did not meet the requirements of HRS § 571-54 inasmuch as the joinder, made on June 26, 2000, was not effected within twenty days after entry of the May 26, 2000 orders and was not in the form of a written motion, sworn by the movant, setting forth the grounds on which reconsideration was requested. Even if the family court reconsidered the May 26, 2000 orders as to father-appellant, the reconsideration was not based on a motion for reconsideration meeting the requirements of HRS § 571-54 as to father-appellant and the May 26, 2000 orders were not reconsidered in the manner required by HRS § 571-54 as to father-appellant. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that father-appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 4, 2000. Lane Y. Takahashi for father-appellant on the motion 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.
