This petition by Public First Law Center (Public First) concerns public access to family court records where a state-sponsored foster and adoption placement results in the death of a child. The deceased child is Isabella P. Kalua f.k.a. Ariel Sellers (Isabella). The records at issue are her child protective act and adoption case files—proceedings brought under Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapters 587A and 578, respectively.
For more than two years, the Department of Human Services (DHS) supervised Isabella’s care through the family court. Less than a year after her adoption, Isabella went missing and has since been declared dead. Prosecutors allege that her DHS recommended foster and adoptive parents, Isaac and Lehua Kalua, kept Isabella locked in a dog cage, starved, and slowly murdered her. Isabella’s estate alleges that DHS was negligent in placing her with the Kaluas—who had a history of serious crimes, no prior parenting experience, and were financially distressed—and that DHS overlooked a multitude of warning signs indicative of abuse and neglect.
Given the unusual circumstances of Isabella’s death, the family court here rightly determined that the disclosure standards were met. The court found a “legitimate purpose” for disclosure under HRS § 587A-40 because it would contribute to public understanding of how DHS and the family court address the problem of child abuse and neglect and how specifically the Kaluas were allowed to take custody of and eventually adopt Isabella. The court found there was “good cause” to disclose adoption records under HRS § 578-15 insofar as it would serve that legitimate purpose.
And yet, despite holding that the disclosure standards were satisfied, the family court disclosed no records from either case—not even the case dockets. The court reasoned that personal information about Isabella’s siblings must be redacted and what remained after redactions could not be disclosed because it would present a “distorted and misleading picture” of what happened. The family court held that the redacted record could not be disclosed because of the impression of DHS and the family court that it might create….