Police unleash dog on suspects after apprehending them: Bites: Excessive force: Verdict: Punitive damages

Law Reporter, Apr 2003

In re Doe, - P.3d _, No. 23663, 2002 WL 31492437 (Haw. Nov. 8, 2002).

The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that parents who need an interpreter because they cannot understand English must be provided with one at any family court hearing in which their parental rights are substantially affected.

In this case, the Hawaii department of human services filed a petition to place the Doe children in foster care due to allegations that they were sexually abused. The children's mother, a native of the Marshall Islands, does not speak English fluently. At the family court hearings on the petition for temporary foster custody, the mother's attorney repeatedly requested an interpreter because the mother was unable to understand the proceedings or to testify without one. The court proceeded without an interpreter. The mother's parental rights were ultimately terminated.

She appealed, alleging that the court violated her due process rights by not providing an interpreter at the custody proceedings.

The Hawaii high court cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent holding that the right to care, custody, and control of one's children is a substantive liberty interest protected by the due process clause. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972). Similarly, the court said, the Hawaii state constitution guarantees parental rights, which cannot be abridged without conducting a fair hearing. "Procedural due process requires that an individual whose rights are at stake understand the nature of the proceedings he or she faces," the court said. This includes the right to an interpreter in cases where the party does not speak English clearly enough to be understood during the proceeding or where the party is unable to speak and comprehend English sufficiently to understand the proceedings and assist counsel in the conduct of the case, the court decided.

In this case, however, the court concluded that the mother was not substantially prejudiced by the absence of an interpreter. The mother was able to answer most questions without an interpreter, and had consented to proceed without one in some hearings. Thus, the court upheld the family court's decision to place the children in foster care.