NC was adjudicated for alleged violations of a criminal statute in contravention of the protection provided for children his age by HRS section 571-44 and the constitutional protections applied to law violation proceedings by HRS section 571-41(c) and the decisions of Hawaii’s courts. See In re Doe, 62 Haw. 70, 72-73, 610 P.2d 509, 511 (1980) (recognizing “a juvenile’s entitlement to adequate written notice, notification of a right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination at an adjudicatory stage” of proceedings which may result in commitment to a state institution, as established in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)); In re TC, 121 Hawai'i 92, 99-102, 214 P.3d 1082, 1089-92 (App.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the family court erred in
holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding that the right to testify on ones own behalf does not include the right to lie holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify holding that a minor alleged pursuant to hrs  571111 to have committed law violations shall be advised of his or her right to testify and that where he or she does not testify the family court shall obtain an ontherecord waiver of that right holding violation of right to testify could not be harmless