SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Mother-Appellant (Mother) appeals from the Family Court of the First Circuits (Family Court)
1
August 13, 2021 Order Terminating Parental Rights, August 13, 2021 Letters of Permanent Custody, and September 23, 2021 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, terminating her and Father-Appellees (Father) parental rights to CS, WS, KS1, and KS2 [collectively Children].
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Mothers arguments below and affirm.
2
(1) Mother contends the Family Court prevented her from fully cross-examining one of the resource caregivers regarding the safety of their home.
The “[d]iscretion resides within a trial court to determine the scope and extent of cross examination.” In re Doe, 100 Hawai‘i 335, 346 n.23, 60 P.3d 285, 296 n.23 (2002) (citing HRE Rule 1101 (1993)); Doe v. Doe, 98 Hawai‘i 144, 154–55, 44 P.3d 1085, 1095–96 (2002). Here, the Family Court appears to have limited Mothers cross-examination because Mothers questions of whether two adults were in the home at all times or whether the resource caregivers were open to voluntary continued contact with Mother post-termination were irrelevant to whether the permanent plan is in Childrens best interests.
Notably, the Family Court permitted Mother to cross-examine one of the resource caregivers on issues related to the safety and appropriateness of the resource caregivers home, including whether they allowed Father to come to the house, had to undergo a criminal background check, and had to ask other people to watch Children for them. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the cross-examination.
(2) Mother contends the record lacks clear and convincing evidence supporting findings of fact (FOF) 95 and 96, which found:
95. [Mother] and [Father] are not presently willing and able to provide the Children with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a service plan.
96. It is not reasonably foreseeable that [Mother] and [Father] will become willing and able to provide the Children with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a service plan.
Mother contends she completed her services and made substantial progress in demonstrating her ability to provide a safe family home.
However, the Family Court did not clearly err as many unchallenged findings constitute substantial evidence supporting FOF 95 and 96. In re Doe, 95 Hawai‘i 183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001). Specifically, for over three years, DHS offered Mother services to help resolve her safety issues, FOF 77-78, 89, 104, 119, 133-34, 138-40, and 169-72; Mother fails to recognize and address her safety concerns and failed to meaningfully engage in services, FOF 55, 58, 74, 76-79, 119-21, 124, 137, 229, 237, 239-46, 248-58, and 260-63; Mother lacks insight into Childrens needs and refuses to acknowledge their educational, medical, and psychological issues despite completing parenting classes, FOF 58, 68-70, 77-79, 111, 113-15, 120-21, 124, 132, 137-40, 142, 147, 153-59, 168-72, 183, 195-97, 211-14, 222-26, 235, 237-50, 252-57, and 261-64; Mother has a history of domestic violence relationships, and despite completing domestic services, she entered into another violent relationship, FOF 74-76, 78, 86-90, 119-21, 124-26, 129, 137-38, 157, 175-78, 232, 234, and 260; Mother failed to attend Childrens appointments and was not consistent or attentive during visits, FOF 77-80, 113-18, 120-21, 139, 148-52, 159, 169-72, 183, 195-97, 200-01, 204, 208, 250-53, 256-57, and 265, and for over four years by the time trial concluded, FOF 64, and in that time, Mother was unable to parent Children and meet their needs, FOF 77-79.
(3) Mother contends the Family Court abused its discretion in terminating a related case in the middle of trial, where the cases were being tried together, and if she had known beforehand, she would have devoted more time to the instant case.
The record does not reflect, and Mother does not contend, that she objected to the amount of trial days remaining in her case or requested additional time to present her defense. Thus, she failed to preserve this argument. See State v. Moses, 102 Hawai‘i 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003) (“As a general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial, that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal[.]”).
(4) Mother contends DHS failed to provide her reasonable reunification efforts and opportunities, arguing that (a) DHS should have offered her more time to work on reunification and visits due to Covid, (b) DHS hindered visitation by requiring a visitation contract, (c) DHS should have provided in-person visits despite the pandemic, (d) although Mothers and the resource caregivers relationship soured, DHS allowed the resource caregivers to control appointments and visits, (e) DHS failed to provide recommended attachment-based services, as they were never delineated in Mothers service plans, (f) DHS provided no specific road map to demonstrate Mothers abilities, and (g) DHS failed to provide Mother a reasonable opportunity to attend Childrens therapy sessions because it provided no referral or plan to do so. Relatedly, Mother challenges FOF 97, 103, 105, 106, and 107.
3
While “DHS is under an obligation to provide a reasonable opportunity to parents through a service plan to reunify the family” and “to make reasonable efforts to reunite parent and child,” an objection to DHSs reasonable efforts or a claim for additional services must be timely made or the issue is waived. See In re Doe, 100 Hawai‘i at 343-44, 60 P.3d at 293-94.
Here, Mother waived her challenges to DHSs reasonable efforts by not making timely requests for services, objecting to the Family Courts findings of reasonable efforts, or otherwise raising the issue of insufficient services. Although Mother contends she objected to reasonable efforts “through motions, contested trials, mediation and at hearings,” her only supporting record citations are to three hearing transcripts, none of which contain an objection to reasonable efforts or to the service plan, or a request for additional services.
Even if not waived, these arguments are contradicted by unchallenged findings of fact, which are binding on this court. See In re Doe, 99 Hawai‘i 522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002) (unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal). For example, Mother was unable to state why she should have more time to provide a safe family home, FOF 262; Mother declined to participate in virtual visits, FOF 252; Mother rejected an offer for family therapy with Children, FOF 245, 255; and although the resource caregivers set Childrens appointments, Mother failed to appear at and participate in them and failed to acknowledge Childrens medical and developmental needs, FOF 77, 246, 247.
(5) Mother contends the record lacks clear and convincing evidence the permanent plan is in Childrens best interests because a resource care-giver testified that she attended Fathers recent wedding and told CSA about it, which contradicts her testimony that she would not allow Father around Children; and the permanent plan does not require continuing contact with Mother, despite the importance of maintaining family relationships. These arguments concern her challenges to FOF 99 and 100,
4
which provide:
99. The permanency goal of the March 2, 2020 Permanent Plan is adoption. The permanent plan goal of adoption is in accord with the [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)] § 587A-32(a)(3) presumption that the goal of adoption is in the Childrens best interests.
100. The Permanent Plan, dated March 2, 2020, with the permanency goal of adoption, is in the Childrens best interests.
Mother fails to show where in the record she preserved these arguments; thus, they are waived. Moses, 102 Hawai‘i at 456, 77 P.3d at 947. Even if not waived, given the two youngest Childrens ages at the time of foster placement and the length of time Children were in foster care, the Family Courts decision is in accordance with the statutory presumptions of HRS § 587A-33(a)(3)(A) and (B) (2018).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Family Courts August 13, 2021 Order Terminating Parental Rights, August 13, 2021 Letters of Permanent Custody, and September 23, 2021 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Jessi L.K. Hall presided.
2
. For organization, we address Mothers arguments out of order from how they appear in her Opening Brief.
3
. Mother also challenges FOF 202 and 203, but this appears to be a mistake. Mother argues, “There existed compelling reason for the DHS not to (continued ․) file its [Motion to Terminate] as the DHS failed to provide timely referrals for necessary, appropriate and reasonable services including reasonable visitation [FOF 202 & 203].” But FOF 202 and 203 do not relate to the Motion to Terminate or to reasonable efforts.
4
. Though Mother identifies FOF 98 and 99 as the challenged FOF, this appears to be an error.