This one is decidedly not about land use, eminent domain, or regulatory takings, so we'll keep it short.
In a case we've been tracking (because we represent the petitioner), the Hawaii Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion in Hamilton v. Lethem, No. SCWC-27580 (Feb. 7, 2012). As we previewed here when the cert application was accepted, the issues in the case revolve around the due process rights of parents in civil TRO proceedings in Family Court.
The court held that "parents have a constitutional right to discipline children inherent in their liberty interest ... under the due process clause ... of the Hawaii Constitution[,] ... trial courts shall consider whether the discipline is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor in determining whether the parent's conduct constituted abuse or proper discipline, and ... a non-custodial parent retains the right to discipline a child when the child is under his or her supervision." Slip op. at 1-2. This decision will have a positive impact on the administration of justice across our state, and more importantly, it protects the rights of Hawaii's parents to have their day in court. A great day for due process and the rule of law. My Damon Key co-counsel Rebecca Copeland, who argued the case. has more on her blog Record on Appeal here.
One final point worth mentioning: we were late to this case, having only come in on the appellate level (Mr. Lethem represented himself in some of the earlier stages of the case, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals expressed some understandable frustration with the presentation of the arguments). While he represented himself quite ably given the circumstances (how many pro se petitioners have you seen who prevail on the "collateral consequences" exception to the mootness rules?), the later proceedings were an example of how appellate counsel add special value to a case by narrowing the points of appeal, focusing the issues, and highlighting the critical pieces of the case for the court. See slip op. at 13 ("Petitioner, now represented by counsel, lists the following questions in his Application:").
Hamilton v. Lethem, No. SCWC-27580 (Haw. Feb. 7, 2012)
