The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has upheld an injunction against Teresa Bernice Arcenas Parsons, affirming that she committed harassment against Maria Regina E. Jacinto. The court's decision, filed on August 7, 2026, comes after Jacinto accused Parsons of making threats following suspicions of an affair between Parsons' husband and Jacinto. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal standards for harassment and the admissibility of evidence in such cases.
The case, Jacinto v. Parsons (CAAP-25-0000828), began when Jacinto filed a petition for a temporary restraining order against Parsons. Jacinto alleged that Parsons made threats against her, stating that “nothing is off limits” for her, including her children and husband. The court's ruling highlights the importance of protecting individuals from harassment and the legal implications of recorded conversations.
Maria Regina E. Jacinto and Teresa Bernice Arcenas Parsons are the main parties involved in this case. The dispute arose from personal conflicts, primarily stemming from Parsons' suspicion that her husband, Patrick, was having an affair with Jacinto. In October 2025, after recording conversations with her husband, Parsons allegedly made threatening statements directed at Jacinto. Following these incidents, Jacinto sought legal protection, leading to the issuance of a temporary restraining order by the District Court of the First Circuit in Honolulu.
The District Court granted Jacinto's request for a temporary restraining order on October 30, 2025, after a trial where both parties presented their cases. The court found that Jacinto provided clear and convincing evidence of harassment as defined by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604-10.5. The court noted that Parsons' recorded statements included threats of physical harm, which justified the injunction. The presiding judge stated, “There were recorded statements, which the Court finds contain threats of physical harm to [Maria].”
In its ruling, the court emphasized that the evidence presented by Jacinto, particularly the recordings of conversations between Parsons and her husband, demonstrated a clear intent to cause harm. The court concluded that Parsons' statements indicated imminent physical harm, thus meeting the legal threshold for harassment. The judge affirmed the injunction for a period of three years, emphasizing the need to protect Jacinto from further harassment.
The court's decision has implications for future cases involving harassment and the admissibility of evidence. It reinforces the legal standard that a threat of imminent physical harm must be proven to obtain an injunction against harassment. This ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly in terms of what constitutes sufficient evidence of harassment.
Looking ahead, the ruling can be appealed to a higher court, although it is not clear if Parsons intends to pursue further legal action. The case sets a precedent for how courts may interpret threats and harassment in personal disputes, particularly when involving recorded communications. The court's decision also highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules when presenting evidence in court.