*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
30-SEP-2025
09:20 AM
Dkt. 41 OP
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
---o0o---PUBLIC FIRST LAW CENTER,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE MATTHEW J. VIOLA,
Senior Judge of the Family Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge,
and
THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAIʻI;
NICOLE CUMMINGS, in her capacity as guardian ad
litem for interested minor children and personal representative
of the estate of Isabella P. Kalua formerly known as Ariel
Sellers; LEHUA KALUA; ISAAC KALUA III; STEPHEN LANE in his capacity as court appointed special master; DEAN NAGAMINE, ESQ.,
in his capacity as guardian ad litem for interested minor
children; ARLENE A. HARADA-BROWN in her capacity as
guardian ad litem for interested minor children;
MELANIE JOSEPH also known as MELANIE SELLERS; ADAM SELLERS;
and COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES PROGRAM,
Respondents.
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NOS. 1FFM-XX-XXXXXXX, 1FFM-XX-XXXXXXX,
FC-S 18-00280, FC-A 21-1-6010)
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
SEPTEMBER 30, 2025
RECKTENWALD, C.J., MCKENNA, EDDINS, GINOZA, AND DEVENS, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY EDDINS, J.
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 587A-40 (2018) and 578-15
(2018 & Supp. 2024) set standards for disclosing confidential
Child Protective Act (CPA) and adoption case records. CPA case
records may be made available to non-parties when “such access
is in the best interests of the child or serves some other
legitimate purpose.” HRS § 587A-40. And adoption records may
be made available to non-parties “on a showing of good cause[.]”
HRS § 578-15.
This case asks whether HRS §§ 587A-40 and 578-15 allow for
public access to case records or information from confidential
CPA and adoption cases involving a deceased foster child, where
the case records also include references to other children
(Siblings).
These laws allow public access. In this original
proceeding we order the disclosure of the case records with
redactions of information about the Siblings.
I.
Petitioner Public First Law Center (Public First) moved the
Family Court of the First Circuit for access to the CPA and
adoption records of Isabella P. Kalua, formerly known as Ariel
2
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Sellers (Ariel). Ariel was reported missing in 2021 from her
adoptive parents’ home in Waimānalo. In 2023 the probate court
determined that Ariel died in August 2021 at the age of six.
CPA and adoption records are confidential. HRS §§ 587A25(b) (2018), 578-15. Generally, only “parties” have access to
those proceedings. HRS § 587A-40(a) (CPA records “may be made
available to other appropriate persons, who are not parties,
only upon an order of the court”) (emphasis added); HRS § 578-15(a) (adoption records “shall be open to inspection only by the
parties or their attorneys, the director of human services or
the director’s agent, or any proper person on a showing of good
cause”) (emphasis added). Members of the public are not
parties. See HRS § 587A-25(b) (“The general public shall be
excluded from child protective proceedings.”); HRS § 578-15(a)
(“[H]earing[s] . . . shall not be open to the public.”).
But there are exceptions. Family courts may release CPA
records to non-parties when “access is in the best interests of
the child or serves some other legitimate purpose.” HRS § 587A40(a). And family courts may release adoption records to nonparties when there is “good cause” for such access. HRS § 578-15(a).
The Siblings, represented by counsel, lodged no objection
in family court to Public First’s request for the records, as
3
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
long as the court redacted information to protect the Siblings’
identities.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) opposed the release
of the records.
DHS cited Kema v. Gaddis to support the continued
confidentiality of the CPA records. 91 Hawaiʻi 200, 982 P.2d 334
(1999). DHS argued that the Siblings’ information was
“inextricably intertwined” with Ariel’s information, just like
in Kema. Thus, the family court should deny Public First’s
request for Ariel’s CPA records.
As to the adoption case records, DHS argued that the
records are subject to HRS § 578-15. This law prevents the
family court from disclosing adoption records to non-parties,
DHS maintained.
The adoptive father made similar arguments regarding the
CPA and adoption records.
Family Court of the First Circuit Judge Matthew J. Viola
denied disclosure. Unsealing the records with redactions would
make the records “misleading,” the court concluded. See
Honolulu Civ. Beat Inc. v. Dep’t of the Att’y Gen., 151 Hawaiʻi
74, 88, 508 P.3d 1160, 1174 (2022) (“When some, but not all, of
a record is exempt from UIPA disclosure, the record may be
entirely withheld only if the permissible redactions are so
extensive that what’s left is an incomprehensible mishmash of
4
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
blacked-out paragraphs, scattered words, and punctuation. If
the unredactable material within a given record conveys
information, it must be disclosed.”). The family court ruled
that disclosure of “an incomplete and misleading record” would
not contribute to “public understanding and awareness of the
response of agencies and the family court to problems of child
abuse and neglect[.]”
Public First filed a petition for writ of mandamus or
prohibition. It asks this court to order the family court to
disclose the records with redactions made to any information
about the Siblings.
We ordered briefing and directed the family court to
transmit the case records in camera for our review.
DHS and the adoptive father filed responses in opposition.
Judge Viola filed a response per Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate
Procedure Rule 21(c), and requested specific instructions on
redactions in the event the court overruled Kema. The Guardian
Ad Litem for the Siblings also filed a response. As in family
court, the Siblings had no objection to the release of the case
records, provided their information was redacted to protect
their identities.
5
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
II.
A. The Child Protective Act Records May Be Released
1. The Legislative History of Chapter 587A
The CPA was designed to conform with federal funding
requirements. Relevant federal laws include Title IV-E of the
Social Security Act (Title IV-E) which “provides federal
reimbursement to states for a portion of the maintenance and
administrative costs of foster care for children who meet
federal eligibility requirements.” Interest of R Children, 145
Hawaiʻi 477, 484 n.12, 454 P.3d 418, 425 n.12 (2019). Another
relevant federal law is the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act (CAPTA) which “provides federal grants to states for the
purpose of assisting them in improving the child protective
services,” and requires states to “submit plans which include
how the state will ‘preserve the confidentiality of all records
in order to protect the rights of the child[.]’” In Interest of
FG, 142 Hawaiʻi 497, 505, 421 P.3d 1267, 1275 (2018) (quoting 42
U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(B)(viii)).
Both federal funding sources include provisions concerning
public access to confidential CPA records. Title IV-E mandates
that “State policies relating to public access to court
proceedings” in child abuse and neglect cases must, “at a
minimum, ensure the safety and well-being of the child, parents,
and family.” 42 U.S.C. § 671(c). And CAPTA requires that each
6
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
state “has in effect and is enforcing” provisions “which allow
for public disclosure of the findings or information about the
case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child
fatality or near fatality.” 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(x).
The Child Protective Act was enacted over forty years ago.
“In 1983, Act 171 enacted the first version of the CPA, which
included the Family Court Provision, and was codified as HRS
chapter 587.” R Children, 145 Hawaiʻi at 484, 454 P.3d at 425
(citing 1983 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 171, at 320-45). From the
start, the legislature made clear that its intent was for the
CPA to operate in a way that ensures the state’s receipt of
federal aid. Section 6 of Act 171 reads:
It is the intent of this Act not to jeopardize the receipt
of any federal aid, and to the extent, and only to the
extent, necessary to effectuate this intent, the governor
may modify the strict provisions of this Act, but shall
promptly report any such modification with reasons therefor
to the legislature.
1983 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 171, § 6 at 345.
The CPA changed in 2010. That year, “Act 135 repealed HRS
chapter 587 and divided its contents into the new CPA, codified
as HRS chapter 587A, and the ‘Family Courts’ chapter, codified
as HRS chapter 571.” R Children, 145 Hawaiʻi at 484, 454 P.3d at
425. Federal funding remained a primary concern. “The new CPA
was enacted to ‘ensure[] that the Child Protective Act is in
conformity with Federal Title IV-E provisions.’” Id. (citing
S.B. 2716, Conf. Com. Rep. 112-10, at 764).
7
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
When the legislature amended the CPA in 2012, CAPTA’s
disclosure directives were explicitly considered. In revising
chapter 587A’s definition of “aggravated circumstances,” Act 28
explained that changes were “necessary to ensure the State’s
compliance with [CAPTA] as well as with the state plan under
[Title IV-E].” 2012 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 28, § 1 at 43.
Chapter 587A’s legislative history shows that, to keep the
state aligned with Title IV-E and CAPTA, the legislature
intended to allow public access to confidential CPA records in
certain circumstances.
2. Disclosure of information and records from a Child
Protective Act case following the death of a child in
foster care constitutes a “legitimate purpose” under
HRS § 587A-40(a)
The parties’ main dispute involves interpretation of HRS
§ 587A-40(a) and Kema’s application.
“Statutory interpretation starts with the statute’s words.”
Alpha, Inc. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 154 Hawaiʻi 486, 490, 555
P.3d 173, 177 (2024) (citation omitted). “Our main duty is to
determine and advance the legislature’s intent.” Id.
Per HRS § 587A-40(a) the family court has discretion to
determine the extent to which CPA case records may be released
to non-parties. Any disclosure requires a finding that the
access is either “in the best interests of the child” or “serves
8
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
some other legitimate purpose.” HRS § 587A-40(a), titled “Court
records,” reads:
The court shall keep a record of all child protective
proceedings under this chapter. Written reports,
photographs, x-rays, or other information that are
submitted to the court may be made available to other
appropriate persons, who are not parties, only upon an
order of the court. The court may issue this order upon
determining that such access is in the best interests of
the child or serves some other legitimate purpose.
HRS § 587A-40(a).
The phrase “legitimate purpose” is undefined. Here, that
creates ambiguity. See Alpha, 154 Hawaiʻi at 490-91, 555 P.3d at
177-78 (“Ambiguity arises when there is more than one plausible
textual meaning.”). “To clarify ambiguity, we consider sources
outside the text, such as legislative history or the purpose and
spirit of the law.” Id. at 491, 555 P.3d at 178.
As mentioned, chapter 587A’s legislative history confirms
that a primary purpose guiding its enactment and subsequent
amendments was to ensure that the state would receive federal
payments under Title IV-E and CAPTA. See 1983 Haw. Sess. Laws
Act 171, § 6 at 345; S.B. 2716, Conf. Com. Rep. 112-10, at 764;
2012 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 28, § 1 at 43.
The federal eligibility requirements for payment under
Title IV-E require states to craft a plan approved by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. See 42 U.S.C. § 671(a).
The requisite features of a state plan do not limit a state’s
authority to establish its own policies “relating to public
9
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
access to court proceedings[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 671(c). But “such
policies shall, at a minimum, ensure the safety and well-being
of the child, parents, and family.” Id.
CAPTA also unlocks federal funding to assist state child
protective services. Per 42 U.S.C. § 5106a, public disclosure
of case records is allowed when a child has died. State plans
for child protective services shall include “provisions which
allow for public disclosure of the findings or information about
the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child
fatality or near fatality.” 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(x)
(emphasis added).
Because Ariel died after being placed in foster care by
DHS, Public First argued that a legitimate purpose supported
public disclosure of the CPA records under HRS § 587A-40(a).
“The death of any child by parents that DHS recommended deserves
the hard light of public scrutiny to assess what went wrong and
how to fix it,” Public First explained.
We agree. We identify two legitimate purposes for public
disclosure.
First, allowing for disclosure of information from a CPA
proceeding when a foster child has died or nearly died aligns
with legislative intent and the federal mandates. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 5106a(b)(2)(B)(x) (state plans must include provisions
allowing for “public disclosure” in “the case of child abuse or
10
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near
fatality”). A construction of “legitimate purpose” that
conforms with Title IV-E and CAPTA requires the family court,
upon review of a duly filed request for access, to disclose
records from a CPA proceeding in these instances – provided that
all disclosures are done in a manner that ensures the safety and
well-being of the child (if still alive), any living sibling,
the parents, and the family. See 42 U.S.C. § 671(c); 42 U.S.C.
§ 5106a(b)(2)(B)(x); HRS § 587A-40(a).
Our interpretation comports with DHS’s chapter 587A
administrative rules. The legislature delegated DHS authority
to “carry[] out the purposes of the Social Security Act . . .
pertaining to . . . child welfare services, including the . . .
making of rules . . . [as] necessary or desirable . . . for the
receipt of financial assistance from the federal government.”
HRS § 346-14(8) (2015) (emphasis added).
Public access to CPA records may be warranted not only when
a child has died or nearly died, but also when a child is
missing or has been critically injured. Hawaiʻi Administrative
Rule (HAR) § 17-1601-6 (eff. 2004) allows disclosure “pursuant
to a legitimate state purpose,” like the federal law does. Cf.
42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(viii)(VI) (permitting disclosure of
confidential records “pursuant to a legitimate State purpose”).
Hawaiʻi’s rule identifies a legitimate state purpose for
11
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
disclosure of DHS records to the public when “[t]he child named
in the report is missing, has suffered a near fatality, been
critically injured, or has died[.]” HAR § 17-1601-6(16)(D).
Thus, public access in these cases ensures compliance with
legislative intent and federal requirements.
Second, we recognize a distinct legitimate purpose to
inform and educate the public about court proceedings in CPA
cases where a foster child is missing, has suffered a near
fatality, been critically injured, or has died. In this sense,
we agree with Judge Viola. A legitimate purpose for public
disclosure of the records existed based on Ariel’s death because
it “would contribute to public understanding and awareness of
the response of agencies and the family court to problems of
child abuse and neglect . . . and, specifically, as to how and
why the Kaluas were deemed appropriate resource caregivers and
ultimately adoptive parents.” Thus per HRS § 587A-40(a), the
court records may be released.
The judicial power of the courts includes “control over
judicial records” and the “power to administer its own records.”
State v. Rogan, 156 Hawaiʻi 233, 244, 573 P.3d 616, 627 (2025)
(citation omitted).
Access to court records is crucial to judicial transparency
and accountability. “Open courtrooms and accessible records are
structural features of our judicial system. The public’s
12
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
ability to watch court cases and check court records advances
societal interests, like promoting transparency, ensuring
fairness and accountability, enabling informed public
discussion, and preserving the integrity of the judicial
process.” Id. at 241, 573 P.3d at 624 (emphasis added). When
“court records are available for all to read, a transparent
approach instills confidence in, and respect for, the
judiciary’s work.” Id.
Unsealing court records in abuse and neglect cases enhances
public understanding, discussion, and analysis on the practices
and processes that occur in CPA proceedings.
There is a presumption of confidentiality in CPA cases.
See HRS § 587A-25(b). Plus, there are general privacy and
safety interests involved in family court proceedings. Cf.
Rogan, 156 Hawaiʻi at 245, 573 P.3d at 628 (“[T]here are
historical and value-driven reasons why courts allow family
court sealing.”).
Still, HRS § 587A-40(a) empowers family courts to disclose
records under some circumstances. Unsealing records detailing
the circumstances surrounding the death of a child in foster
care advances the public interest. See 2023 Haw. Sess. Laws Act
86, § 1 at 198-99 (establishing the Mālama ʻOhana Working Group
to improve the state’s child welfare system and citing Ariel’s
case as an example of the system’s failures).
13
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Thus, we hold that a family court may find a “legitimate
purpose” to disclose information from a CPA proceeding where a
foster child is missing, has suffered a near fatality, been
critically injured, or has died.
Next, we discuss redacting the CPA and adoption records.
Before public disclosure, measures to protect a child’s privacy
interests must be in place.
3. Redactions of the court records protect the Siblings’
privacy interests
Public First maintains that redactions are possible (and
required). The Siblings’ privacy rights are protected by
redacting the records, Public First says.
We agree.
To protect the children’s privacy interests, information in
the court records about the Siblings must be redacted.
The legislature created the CPA to “make paramount the
safety and health of children who have been harmed or are in
life circumstances that threaten harm.” HRS § 587A-2 (2018).
Through redactions, the family court is able to disclose records
while ensuring the protection of vulnerable children. See also
42 U.S.C. § 671(c). If the child is still alive, redactions
must protect their privacy. And any information about a minor
sibling must also be redacted. Cf. Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC
v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 138 Hawaiʻi 14, 16, 375 P.3d 1252, 1254
14
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
(2016) (holding that article I, section 6 of the Hawaiʻi
Constitution protects the health information and confidential
patient medical records of a person from disclosure absent a
compelling state interest).
Judge Viola understood this. He determined that “redaction
of information in the court’s CPA case file related to the
Siblings could eliminate the harm that would result from public
disclosure of such information.”
Siblings had no objection to the requested disclosures as
long as redactions protected their identities. DHS, the
adoptive father, and CASA made no argument as to why redactions
don’t work or how redactions fail to protect the privacy
interests of the Siblings. Rather, they pointed to Kema.
Because in that case disclosure of even redacted records did not
serve the best interest of the Siblings, they believed Kema
mandated non-disclosure.
Our review of the record, however, supports redaction as a
valid process to protect the Siblings’ safety and well-being and
their privacy interests.
The family court erred in concluding that the records
should not be released because the redactions would render the
disclosure of information incomplete or misleading. The
completeness of the record is inconsequential when an otherwise
15
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
“legitimate purpose” under HRS § 587A-40(a) supports public
access.
When confronted with a legitimate purpose, the family court
must make specific findings about why a particular record (or
records) should not be disclosed. Valid grounds for nondisclosure may include that disclosure of records could result
in harm to a child. See 42 U.S.C. § 671(c); Pack v. Kings Cnty.
Hum. Servs. Agency, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
Other valid grounds for non-disclosure may include where the
record is protected from disclosure by federal or state law.
See, e.g., HRS § 350-1.4(b) (2015) (affording confidentiality to
the identity of a reporter of child abuse or neglect “who
requests that the reporter’s name be confidential”); HRS § 338-18 (2022 & Supp. 2024) (protecting vital statistical records
from disclosure).
Besides redaction, the family court has other ways to
protect competing interests. For instance, it may issue
protective orders to restrict and limit the release of case
information to the public. See Hawaiʻi Family Court Rules, Rule
26(c). Here, redactions were a viable way to protect the
Siblings’ privacy interests.
16
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
4. We overrule Kema to the extent it equates the best
interest of the child with “legitimate purposes” under
HRS § 587A-40
We overrule Kema to the extent it held that HRS § 587A40(a)’s “legitimate purposes” may only be those that further the
“best interests of the child.”
Kema held that “‘legitimate purposes’ relevant to HRS
chapter 587 are limited to those that further the best interests
of the children who come within the jurisdiction of the family
court, pursuant to the Child Protective Act, i.e., purposes that
will safeguard, treat, and provide services and plans for
children in need of protection.” 91 Hawaiʻi at 205, 982 P.2d at
339 (emphasis added).
The court interpreted HRS § 587-81 (1993) (repealed 2010),
governing the release of court records under the earlier
codified version of the CPA in chapter 587. Like chapter 587,
HRS § 587-81 authorized the family court to release case
information from a CPA proceeding after determining that “such
access is in the best interest of the child or serves some other
legitimate purpose[.]” Kema, 91 Hawaiʻi at 202 n.2, 982 P.2d at
336 n.2 (quoting HRS § 587-81).
We hold that the standard for whether a legitimate purpose
exists for disclosure of CPA records is not grounded solely in
the best interest of the child standard. Contra. Kema, 91
Hawaiʻi at 205, 982 P.2d at 339.
17
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Kema conflated legitimate purpose and best interest.
“[L]egitimate purposes” supporting disclosure are not “limited
to those that further the best interests of the children[.]”
Id. Rather, the family court has procedural mechanisms
available, such as redactions or protective orders, to protect
the best interest of a child while also allowing appropriate
disclosure. See supra Section II.A.3.
We therefore overrule Kema’s interpretation of the phrase
“legitimate purpose” in HRS § 587A-40(a) as being “limited” to
situations that further the best interest of a child.
A legitimate purpose for disclosure under HRS § 587A-40(a)
may exist for reasons unrelated to furthering the best interest
of the child. For example, when a foster child is missing, has
suffered a near fatality, been critically injured, or has died,
there is a legitimate purpose in permitting public access to
court records. See HAR § 17-1601-6(16)(D); 42 U.S.C.
§ 5106a(b)(2)(B)(x). When a child is reported missing, the
release of information from CPA case records may generate leads
to assist the family or police department in locating the child.
See Kema, 91 Hawaiʻi at 202, 982 P.2d at 336. The family court
may also find a legitimate purpose to release confidential case
records to allow civil discovery or where the disclosure is
required to preserve a criminal defendant’s constitutional right
to confrontation and cross-examination. Cf. In re Keisha T., 44
18
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Cal. Rptr. 2d 822 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (collecting cases from
California where the court allowed disclosure of otherwise
confidential juvenile case records). And as this case reveals,
there are situations in which the public interest requires the
disclosure of some information from the case file of an
otherwise confidential CPA proceeding.
We stress that any order by the family court to allow
public access to otherwise confidential CPA case information
must be made in a manner that is consistent with maintaining the
safety and well-being of the child and any minor siblings. See
HRS § 587A-40(a); 42 U.S.C. § 671(c). This construction is
consistent with the purpose of the CPA to prioritize “the safety
and health of children who have been harmed or are in life
circumstances that threaten harm.” HRS § 587A-2. Also per
above, this purpose includes ensuring that the state is
compliant with federal requirements. See 2010 Haw. Sess. Laws
Act 135, § 1 at 282-311; 2012 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 28, § 1 at 43.
Kema is consistent with our holding to the extent it ruled
that redaction of sibling information must occur before a CPA
case file involving a deceased foster child may be released
under HRS § 587A-40(a). Because the redactions of court records
prepared by the family court did “not delete all information
related to the other children,” Kema held that the family court
erred by ordering the release of the record as any such
19
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
disclosure would harm the siblings. 91 Hawaiʻi at 206, 982 P.2d
at 340.
Kema collides with our holding, however, in its
interpretation of “legitimate purpose” as used in the CPA. See
HRS § 587A-40(a). Legitimate purposes for disclosing CPA
records are not confined to those purposes that further the best
interest of the child. Thus, Kema is overruled as to its narrow
interpretation of “legitimate purpose.”
B. The adoption records may be unsealed based on good cause
HRS § 578-15(b)(1) provides that confidential adoption
records “shall not be inspected by any person, . . .
except[] . . . upon a showing of good cause.” HRS § 578-15(b)(1).
In construing the phrase “good cause” this court has held
that its construction and application depend on the
circumstances of the case. See Chen v. Mah, 146 Hawaiʻi 157,
178, 457 P.3d 796, 817 (2020). “It is not possible to provide
one definition of ‘good cause,’ as standards governing whether
‘good cause’ exists depend not only upon the circumstances of
the individual case, but also upon the specific court rule at
issue.” Id.
Here, the adoption records are based on the CPA records.
DHS initially placed Ariel with her foster parents. And the
foster parents later adopted her. As the family court
20
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
concluded, the CPA and adoption proceedings are “inextricably
intertwined[.]”
We hold that “good cause” exists to release adoption case
records that are connected to an underlying CPA case when an
adopted foster child “is missing, has suffered a near fatality,
been critically injured, or has died.” HAR § 17-1601-6(16)(D).
This interpretation aligns with federal law. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 5106a(b)(2)(B)(x).
We also hold that if there is good cause, the family court
has the authority and discretion to order the unsealing of
adoption records to a non-party like Public First. In this
case, because the adoption case arose out of the CPA case –
which we hold under the circumstances must be released for a
“legitimate purpose” – the adoption records must also be
disclosed.
III.
We grant Public First’s petition as to its requested relief
for public access to the redacted records in the CPA and
adoption cases.
This court “has general supervisory powers over the state’s
lower courts.” Rivera v. Cataldo, 153 Hawaiʻi 320, 324, 537 P.3d
1167, 1171 (2023). “When issues of ‘considerable public
importance’ are at stake, we may exercise our supervisory
power.” Id.
21
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
The use of these supervisory powers is appropriate here to
provide the family courts with direction on “a procedural and
substantive matter of public importance.” Gannett Pac. Corp. v.
Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 227, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978). Clarity
is needed on the standard governing the disclosure of
confidential case records from CPA and adoption proceedings
where a child is missing, has suffered a near fatality, been
critically injured, or has died and the public requests access
to the case records or information.
Thus, exercising our supervisory powers, we redact and
release the case records from FC-S 18-00280 and FC-A 21-1-6010.
So we deny the petition for relief. It’s moot.
Pursuant to our supervisory jurisdiction and authority
under HRS §§ 602-4 (2016) and 602-5 (2016), this court examined
the CPA and adoption case records. The records total 975 pages.
We have made redactions to those records. These redactions are
geared toward the precise circumstances of the case, and we
stress that these redaction decisions have no precedential
value.
Redactions include:
1. Reference to a Sibling, including a date of birth or
initials.
2. Reference to Ariel that requires redaction to prevent
any detrimental harm to the safety or well-being of a Sibling,
22
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
such as information where a clear inference exists that a
Sibling may have been subject to similar harm. (In making these
redactions, we have redacted some information that refers to
other people where the disclosure of this information may be
detrimental to the well-being of a Sibling.)
3. Vital records, such as a birth certificate, or
marriage certificate.
4. Dates of birth and social security numbers. See
Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules, Rules 2.19 and 9.1(a) (eff. 2012).
The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall provide a copy of the
redacted records to the Siblings’ counsel, DHS, adoptive
father’s counsel, and CASA who shall then have thirty days from
today to file any objection to the disclosure of specific
information identified in the redacted case records. Any
objection shall identify the legal or factual basis for the
objection and the applicable volume and PDF page number. If the
objection refers to confidential information, it may be filed
under seal, and a redacted version of the objection shall also
be filed on the public record.
After any objections are resolved by this court, redacted
copies of the case files will be publicly filed.
We understand the substantial burden on family courts to
address valid requests like this and to prepare redacted case
files. We hold that the family court has inherent powers to
23
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
order DHS to prepare redacted versions of case filings. See HRS
§ 571-8.5(a)(10) (2018) (family courts’ power to “[m]ake and
award judgments, decrees, orders, and mandates, issue executions
and other processes, and do other acts . . . as may be necessary
. . . for the promotion of justice”); In re Doe, 96 Hawaiʻi 73,
80, 26 P.3d 562, 569 (2001) (describing HRS § 571-8.5 as “merely
a legislative restatement of the courts’ existing powers”)
(cleaned up); Doe v. Doe, 98 Hawaiʻi 144, 154-55, 44 P.3d 1085,
1095-96 (2002) (“[C]ourts have inherent equity, supervisory, and
administrative powers as well as inherent power to control the
litigation process before them.”).
For instance, family courts may order that:
(1) DHS prepare a version of the relevant case records
with the necessary redactions consistent with this opinion.
(2) DHS circulate the redacted records to the parties in
the family court proceeding with a reasonable deadline for them
to review and provide any objection to a redaction made, or to
specifically identify what further information should be
redacted, if any, and the basis for the further redaction.
(3) The parties confer in good faith to resolve any
objections.
(4) DHS file the redacted records with the family court
along with a memorandum that explains the basis for the
redactions, and any unresolved objections.
24
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
(5) DHS confer, in the appropriate case, with the nonparty requesting access to the case records as to the terms of a
proposed protective order that could limit or restrict the
further disclosure of the released information.
Last, we note that the petition did not seek any relief as
to the unsealing of the miscellaneous proceedings initiated by
Public First to access Ariel’s CPA and adoption case records.
See 1FFM-XX-XXXXXXX (moving to unseal CPA records); 1FFM-24-0000018 (moving to unseal adoption records). Some records filed
in these miscellaneous proceedings identify the Siblings,
including their years of birth, initials, and other information.
To support its order, the family court details personal
information about the Siblings in the case files. See 1FFM-24-0000019 Dkt. 59:10, ¶ 39. Also, DHS’s opposition discloses
their birth years and initials. If a motion to unseal these
miscellaneous proceedings is filed in the family court, then
this information should be redacted.
We refer to the Permanent Committee on Family Court Rules a
request to draft proposed rule amendments governing the process
for the disclosure of confidential CPA or adoption records where
the party requesting access has established that a child “is
25
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
missing, has suffered a near fatality, been critically injured,
or has died.” HAR § 17-1601-6(16)(D).
Robert Brian Black and Benjamin /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald M. Creps (on the briefs)
for petitioner /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
Randall S. Nishiyama and Alyssa- /s/ Todd W. Eddins Marie Y. Kau (on the briefs)
for respondent Judge /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Julio C. Herrera, Kurt J. /s/ Vladimir P. Devens Shimamoto, James W. Walther, and
Lynne M. Youmans (on the briefs)
for respondent Department of
Human Services, State of Hawaiʻi
Francis T. O’Brien
(on the briefs)
for respondent Isaac Kalua III
Dean T. Nagamine
(on the briefs)
Guardian Ad Litem
Arlene A. Harada-Brown
(on the briefs)
Guardian Ad Litem
Craig Y. Iha and Chase S.L.
Suzumoto (on the briefs)
for respondent Court Appointed
Special Advocates Program
26