In the Interest of Doe
Hawaii Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
ACOBA, J.
We hold that parents who are in need of an interpreter because of them inability to understand English are entitled to the assistance of one at any family court hearing in which them parental rights are substantially affected. However, under the circumstances of this ease, Appellant-Mother 1 (Mother) has failed to demonstrate her “need of an interpreter” and the manner, if any, whereby she was substantially prejudiced by the absence of an interpreter at certain proceedings. Moreover, Appellee-Depai'tment of Human Services (DHS) established by a preponderance of…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Doe v. DoeHawaii Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. MatavaleHawaii Supreme Court · 2007
- In Re RgbHawaii Supreme Court · 2010
- Ek v. BoggsHawaii Supreme Court · 2003
- In the Interest of RGBHawaii Supreme Court · 2010
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.