IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POST-DECREE RELIEF
I, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am Defendant in the above-captioned divorce case.
2. This Declaration is made upon personal knowledge and if called upon, I am competent to
testify to the facts set forth herein, except where statements are made on information and belief.
3. This Declaration is made in support of my Motion and Declaration for Post-Decree Relief
(“Defendant’s Motion”), to which this Declaration is attached.
4. The Plaintiff in this case is appearing pro se
5. Plaintiff and the Defendant were blessed by an issue during their marriage. The issue a female
minor (K.M.K), she was born in 2005.
6. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were divorced in 2011 as a decree nisi was issued by the court
7. Pursuant to the Decree issued by the court, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were awarded joint
legal custody of their issue. The Plaintiff was to be awarded physical custody if the Defendant
violated the terms of the custody arrangement.
8. In 2012, the Court ordered that the Defendant shall have visitation with their daughter on an
altering weekly schedule as follows:
a. Week 1: Friday afternoon to Saturday at 2:00 p.m; and
b. Week 2: Sunday at 9:00 am to Monday morning.
9. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had a consensus to amend the schedule ordered by the court as
a. The Defendant had visitation with his daughter every Friday afternoon to Sunday at 5:00
p.m. The Defendant fell for the trap of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff has refused to honor
the new arrangement that was reached through consensus or the orders of the Court.
10. From 2011 when the marriage was dissolved up-to 2016, The Defendant had visitation with
his daughter for about three and a half days in a week.
11. From 2016 to 2019 the Defendant had visitation with his daughter for about three days per
week. The Defendant learnt that the Plaintiff had moved in with her boyfriend and as a result the
Defendant’s daughter had to be taken to live with her grandparents where she was separated
from the Defendant and other cousins.
12. In June of 2019, the issue was first hospitalized for one (1) month after suffering from eating
disorder. Thereafter, Plaintiff stopped to co-parenting with the Defendant and their
communication spiraled. The plaintiff has since refused/ neglected to communicate directly with
the Defendant, thereby forcing the Defendant to contact the Plaintiff’s boyfriend to reach the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff together with her boyfriend humiliated the Defendant as the Defendant
was supposed to request the Plaintiff’s boyfriend for permission to speak with his daughter.
13. When the Defendant was lucky to get his daughter, the Plaintiff would not allow the
defendant the liberty to do what he wants. The Plaintiff would call and come up with a schedule
of activities that the Defendant and the little girl would do.
14. From January 2020 to March 2020, the Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to only spend
nineteen (19) hours a week with his daughter.
15. From March 2020 to June 2020, the Defendant was only allowed by the Plaintiff to spend a
period of seven (7) days.
16. on 6 th July 2020 to 14 th July 2020, the daughter of the Defendant was hospitalized for the
second time. The Plaintiff and her boyfriend have denied the Defendant sufficient time with his
daughter. Since his daughter became sick he has been allowed to see his daughter for only four
17. The Plaintiff has not only limited the Defendant to see his daughter, the Plaintiff has
attempted to completely alienate the Defendant from his daughter. The Defendant has been left
out in making major legal custody decisions since the Plaintiff makes those decisions without his
consent. The Plaintiff has misinterpreted the award of sole physical custody made to her by the
court to mean that she makes all the decisions relating to the child.
18. The Plaintiff has continuously exposed and neglected the child, on _______ the Plaintiff
went for a work trip to the mainland and left the child under the care of her boyfriend and her
adult son. The Plaintiff did not inform the Defendant of this trip, the Defendant came to know of
the trip when the Plaintiff returned.
19. The Plaintiff refused, ignored or neglected sharing school or medical records and information
with the Defendant, thus forcing the Defendant to obtain medical and academic record from
Kapiolani Medical Center and Moanalua High School. As a result of the Defendant obtaining
records relating to her daughter which the Plaintiff had refused to give him. The Plaintiff has
resorted to maligning the Defendant that he was emotionally abusing them. This is a far-fetched
narrative that the Plaintiff want to justify her reasons of denying the Defendant medical and
20. The Defendant came to learn about the major decisions made by the Plaintiff in relation to
his daughter’s health, while he did not consent to them or his consent was not even sought. The
following are some of the major decisions made without the Defendant’s consent:
a. The Plaintiff removed the child from an eating disorder program which she had been
participating since 2019;
b. The child was placed in another program by the Plaintiff without the consent of the
21. The Plaintiff is defaming the Defendant as he has told the medical providers to the child
that it is the Defendant who triggered the eating disorder. This statement by the Plaintiff is
untrue, not factual and unsubstantiated. The director of child’s program at Kapiolani Medical
Center has relied on the false allegations made by the Plaintiff to limit the Defendant’s
22. Even though the Plaintiff has withheld information relating to the treatment and health of
the child, the Defendant has tried to obtain every information just like a responsible father
like him would have done to know the status of the health of their children.
23. The Defendant is willing to do more and anything within his power to support his
daughter’s health, although this can be achieved if the Plaintiff grants him regular visitation
hours and he be informed on the treatment his daughter is being put on.
24. The Defendant reasonably believes that it is the Plaintiff and her boyfriend that have
triggered the eating disorder of his daughter. The Plaintiff and her boyfriend have been
talking about Keto dieting which they have made my daughter not to feel comfortable in her
body and started following the Keto diet.
25. The Defendant was shocked to discover from his daughter medical records that she will
be moved to programs on the mainland including California, Washington or Illinois. The
Plaintiff had not bothered to inform or seek the opinion of the Defendant.
26. The Defendant vehemently opposes the decision to move his daughter to mainland. This
is because the Defendant and his daughter spend time with their extended families at Oahu.
Therefore; it is not in the best interest of his daughter to be separated from her extended
27. The Defendant is concerned that the Plaintiff will move the child to the mainland without
the consent of the Defendant. The Plaintiff is working extremely hard to erase the Defendant
from the life and memory of his daughter.
28. WHEREUPON, the Defendant respectfully submits the following THAT:
a. The Court enforces the joint legal custody and fully physical study;
b. The Defendant be listed as a contact person at his daughter’s school and all medical
c. The Court to enforce the Defendant’s schedule for visitation;
d. The visitation hours of the Defendant to be amended to compensate for the time he had not
seen his daughter as per the order of the court; and
c. The cost of filing this suit and attorney fees be bored by the Plaintiff.