In re: DS

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 22-APR-2026 08:19 AM Dkt. 197 ODDP SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________ IN RE DS ________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 3DV121000235) ORDER DENYING PETITIONS (By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Cahill, assigned by reason of vacancy) A letter from Petitioner was filed on June 10, 2025. Based on the record, we construe the letter as a petition for writ of mandamus and deny the petition as moot because the Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the February 13, 2025 child custody order in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. As to the petition for extraordinary writ filed January 7, 2026, the family court’s post-divorce decree custody and visitation orders are appealable. See Eaton v. Eaton, 7 Haw. App. 111, 118–19, 748 P.2d 801, 805 (App. 1987). An extraordinary writ proceeding is not an appeal and is not intended to be used in lieu of normal appellate procedures. See Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319, 537 P.3d 1154, 1166 (2023). Also, Petitioner’s arguments in this petition have not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to relief. See id. It is ordered that the January 7, 2026 petition is denied. Since the first petition was filed on June 10, 2025, Petitioner filed many documents in this court that contain the name of a minor child, in violation of Rules 2.19 and 9.1 of the Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules (HCRR). An order was filed on August 26, 2025, that warned Petitioner against future violations of HCRR Rules 2.19 and 9.1. For example, rather than use the minor child’s name, Petitioner may instead use the child’s initials or refer to the child using general terms, such as “Child” or “Minor Child.” See HCRR Rule 2.19. Petitioner correctly referred to the minor child using general terms in some documents filed after the August 26, 2025 order. But most of the numerous documents that Petitioner filed after the August 26, 2025 order do not comply with HCRR Rules 2.19 and 9.1 notwithstanding the warning issued in the August 26, 2025 order. Based on this record, we find that Petitioner has not shown a good faith attempt to comply with HCRR Rules 2.19 and 9.1. See HCRR Rule 9.5. It is ordered that all documents filed after the August 26, 2025 order and 2 contain the minor child’s name or other personal information of the child, see HCRR Rule 2.19, are stricken from this record. All remaining documents filed as motions and the petition filed at docket 22 (redacted version at docket 73) are denied without prejudice to consideration in other courts. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 22, 2026. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza /s/ Vladimir P. Devens /s/ Peter T. Cahill 3