It PDEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A REQUESTED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

RELIEF

AFTER ORDER OR DECREE

1. The defendant requests the plaintiff to provide factual evidence as to why the court

Should order the mother to continue supervised visitation.

2. Request that the father provide his statement explaining why it would be in

The child's best interest to deny the child her rights to regular and frequent

Visitation with her mother

3. The defendant requests that the father provide the court with the Hawaii statutes

Or laws that would support his request to continue supervised visitation between

The child and her mother.

4. A request from the father to provide the court with his explanation as to why he

continues to violate the court's divorce decree by being In contempt, refusing

To comply with retaining a parent coordinator to assist parents in disagreements,

withholding mothers' visitation, refusing to communicate, and to

Coparent with mother on our family wizard app, denying the child any contact with

Her mother or mother's side of the family refusing phone contact, including any

involvement in the child's schooling or cheerleading activities, the constant badmouthing

Of mother to child, preventing their contact. This continued behavior would not be

in the child's best interest

HRS 571-46(a) (2) requires the court to consider if the person is fit and proper to

care for the minor child at the time of the contemplated custody award; such a

determination cannot be based solely on circumstances as existed six years ago. The statute
requires the court to consider relevant evidence of each parent's fitness for

custody; the family courts have held that when custody of a child is at issue, a

person's present fitness must be considered. The concern is the best interest of the
child Doe v. Doe, 98 Hawaii 144, 155, 44p.3d 1085,. H

5. In ordering visitation, superior courts must consider the best interest

factors, the legislative intent favoring frequent continuing contact with both parents

expressed AS 47.10.084©

6. Supervised Visitation is a significant disruption of a parent's visitation rights, and it, therefore,
should only be imposed where the treatment of harm toward a child is

present.

7. The court made no findings relating to visitation; the courts did not find supervised

visitation was in the child's best interest, or that unsupervised visitation was not in

the child's best interest.

8. The court did not explain why it continues to deny the mother unsupervised visitation it

continues to deny unsupervised visitation on laws that don't apply to this situation.

9. The courts claimed that the mother's motion for unsupervised visitation was denied due to the
fact that the family court did not have jurisdiction to do so. Mother's argument that family courts
had jurisdiction to modify as long as it was in the best interest

was correct, yet she was again denied relief when she requested a change in visitation 3

months later.

10. In October, the mother filed a motion for relief seeking unsupervised visitation due to

the fact she had lost her job and could not afford a supervisor, which would leave mother and
child with no contact, and that the TRO was

father claim in the previous argument for requesting mother in supervised visitation. The fact the
father was still violating the court's order by denying the mother her visitation, causing the child
psychological and emotional distress by badmouthing mother-to- child , cutting off any other
means of contact with the mother if she could not pay the supervisor and refusing to cooperate
with the parenting coordinator as the divorce decree had ordered to help parents with this issue
instead of bringing them to court. The

Courts denied the mother's motion again, claiming the

mother did not argue a change in
circumstance claiming the mother to be a vexatious litigant by continuing to bring this to the
courts.

11. The clear discrimination against mothers is unquestionable. Not only did the mother

prove a change in circumstance by law that is no longer a requirement. The Hawaii

Supreme Court's decision in Waldecker v. O'Scanlon, p3d, No. SCWC- 14-0000780,

2016 WL 3364695 ( Hawaii June 17, 2016). Overturned case law, which had required a

person seeking a change in custody to satisfy two conditions: a material change in

circumstance and the best interest of the child. The mother filed a motion to recuse as

she is being denied her rights to a relationship and contact with her

child, among other things, not being treated equally while being deprived of her rights and due
process and being denied equal protection this discrimination is causing psychological and
emotional trauma, as well as financial bankruptcy. The judge should be disqualified

due to his repeated abuse of misconduct, not upholding the oath of office, and not

following the laws and civil procedures.

12. The Mother will continue to motion to the courts for her rights to regular visitation and

custody; she will continue to seek justice and reform of the Hawaii judiciary. She will

continue to seek accountability and redress within the government for all the

unethical procedures, the deprivation of her rights and due process, the fraud upon

the courts, the conspiracy with unscrupulous attorneys to intentionally interfere with a mother's
parental rights, defraud the citizens of Hawaii take away the guarantee of freedom that every
United States citizen is promised to be treated equally and fairly to be innocent until proven
guilty in the courts of law the laws of evidence to be required

before punishment or taking away your rights to raise your child as you see fit. I am denied all
these required procedures.

The laws of Hawaii, for ordering supervised visitation are to protect a child. If a parent has been
accused, or found guilty of abuse or neglect, I have not been accused or found guilty of abuse, or
neglect of my child. Supervised visitation was ordered as a requirement for the

father's order of protection which is no longer active the TRO was

based on the mother and father arguing and fighting in front of the child. There is no longer a
relationship between the parents, so this is no longer an issue. There is no reason that a mother
should be denied her rights to normal and frequent visitation as a non-custodial parent. The
courts did not give an order for supervised visitation which is required to highlight the specific
reasons for A A supervision the courts have made no written findings stating the facts in which
the mother's behavior or actions would justify the courts to intervene and interfere with the
mother's parental rights and her relationship and the intimate bond she has with her child. The
courts gave the father judicial authority to control the mother's visitation with her child allowing
the father to cut off all other means of communication and forcing the mother into financial ruin
by having to pay 1800 per month in visitation fees to maintain a relationship and contact with her
child for the past 6 years.