The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued a ruling on a complex custody and child support case involving divorced parents, F.S. and M.S. The court's decision, filed under docket number CAAP-25-0000635, addresses multiple motions filed by both parties over several years. The ruling impacts their ongoing custody arrangements and child support obligations.
The case centers around F.S. (the Father) and M.S. (the Mother), who divorced on July 7, 2016, after over eleven years of marriage. They have one child together. The divorce decree included provisions for a Parent Coordinator to help resolve disputes regarding custody and visitation if the parents could not agree. The situation escalated when the appointed Parent Coordinator, Dr. Robert Simon, stepped down in August 2024, leading to a series of motions regarding his replacement and the ongoing child support payments.
In September 2024, F.S. filed a motion requesting the court to enforce the divorce decree, which included appointing a new Parent Coordinator and addressing various issues related to their child. The Family Court responded by appointing Dr. Lori Love as the new Parent Coordinator and ordered M.S. to cooperate with both F.S. and Dr. Love. M.S. contested this decision, claiming that the Family Court lacked the authority to appoint a new Parent Coordinator without mutual consent.
The Family Court's rulings led to further disputes, including M.S.'s request for a financial evaluation due to changes in her circumstances, which she argued affected her ability to pay for the Parent Coordinator's services. The court ultimately denied her request and ruled that F.S. could offset his child support payments with the costs incurred for the Parent Coordinator.
On September 9, 2025, the Family Court issued an order that included several key decisions: it terminated F.S.'s child support obligation to offset the amounts he paid for M.S.'s share of the Parent Coordinator's fees, ordered M.S. to cooperate with the Parent Coordinator, and denied M.S.'s request for a financial evaluation. M.S. appealed this order on September 17, 2025, arguing that the Family Court had erred in its decisions.
The court ruled on several points raised by M.S. In its opinion, the court stated, "The Family Court erred in making factual findings regarding Mother's 'testimony' at the various hearings, including the July 28, 2025 hearing, because there was no testimony to be considered." This ruling highlighted the court's concern about the lack of evidentiary hearings on key issues, particularly regarding M.S.'s financial status and ability to pay for the Parent Coordinator.
Additionally, the court found that the Family Court had abused its discretion in terminating F.S.'s child support obligation without following the necessary guidelines. The ruling emphasized that the Family Court must use the Hawaii Child Support Guidelines when establishing or modifying child support obligations, and it did not do so in this case.
The court affirmed some of the Family Court's orders but vacated others, specifically regarding the denial of M.S.'s Motion for Financial Evaluation and the termination of F.S.'s child support obligations. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, indicating that the Family Court must reevaluate the child support situation and consider M.S.'s financial circumstances more thoroughly.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the responsibilities of both parents regarding child support and the use of Parent Coordinators in custody disputes. It underscores the importance of adhering to procedural guidelines in family law cases, particularly when financial evaluations are at stake.
Moving forward, both parties may have the opportunity to present additional evidence regarding their financial situations and the best interests of their child. The court's decision allows for a reevaluation of child support obligations and emphasizes the need for cooperation between the parents in the ongoing custody arrangements.
As for next steps, M.S. and F.S. will need to return to the Family Court for further proceedings consistent with the Intermediate Court's ruling. The case may involve additional hearings to establish a clearer understanding of the financial obligations and the role of the Parent Coordinator in their ongoing custody arrangement.