Campbell Estate heiress Abigail Kawananakoa told a psychiatrist in January that she changed her mind about leaving the bulk of her estate to the Hawaiian people, a statement that contradicts her testimony in court last week.

The words came out during an interview conducted as part of a psychiatric evaluation by Dr. James E. Spar, professor emeritus of the UCLA Department of Psychology.

The evaluation’s report, a copy of which was obtained by the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, was commissioned by Michael Rudy, attorney for Kawananakoa’s spouse, Veronica Gail Worth Kawananakoa, and is entered into evidence and hidden from public view under court seal.

Circuit Court Judge James Ashford ruled Thursday that Kawananakoa, 93, is unfit to manage her own finances, in part because of her impaired ability to receive and evaluate information.

Ashford, following a three-day hearing in 1st Circuit Court, issued an order for a conservator to oversee Kawananakoa’s personal financial affairs, which include her horse ranches in Waimanalo and California.

The hearing was part of the ongoing court battle over Kawananakoa’s $215 million estate, roughly half of which was originally earmarked for the Abigail KK Kawananakoa Foundation, the charity she created in 2001 to benefit Hawaiian causes after her death.

In court Wednesday, Kawananakoa said she still feels an obligation to help the Hawaiian people, and she also acknowledged having said in a television interview that “for the rest of my life and with whatever means I have at my disposal, I will use it to the benefit of the Hawaiian people.”

After being questioned by Regan Iwao, an attorney representing the Abigail KK Kawananakoa Foundation, he thanked her on behalf of the Hawaiian people.

However, two months earlier, during an interview with Spar, Kawananakoa said she had changed her mind about leaving her money to the Hawaiian people.

Kawananakoa told Spar that “when I said I’m going to leave the bulk of my estate to the Hawaiian people, that’s a falsehood and I never said it.”

She later said, “I know who I’m not going to leave it to, and that’s to the Hawaiian people.”

Spar responded, “But that’s what (the trust) says now.”

Kawananakoa: “Yes, and I want to change it.”

Spar: “You want to change it because you’re convinced it’s not really going to go to the Hawaiian people?”

Kawananakoa: “There is no such thing. It doesn’t exist.”

Earlier in the interview she declared, “There are no Hawaiian people.”

Spar’s evaluation was conducted Jan. 15 at Kawananakoa’s ranch in Nuevo, Calif., and his report includes selected excerpts from a 3-1/2-hour interview.

Contacted for a response, Kawananakoa said in a statement that she was expressing her exasperation at the fact the foundation bearing her name is now controlled by Jan Dill, Oswald Stender and Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa, who were put in that position by former attorney and successor trustee James Wright without her knowledge, consent or approval.

“No Court ruling or expert examination has precluded me from determining to whom I leave my estate when I die. The decision as to who receives my property at my death remains mine alone,” she said in an emailed statement relayed by her attorney, Bruce Voss.

When the foundation was created, its purpose was to “maintain, support, preserve and foster the traditional Hawaiian culture in existence prior to 1778, including its art, language, music, religious practices and social history, while at the same time enabling Hawaiian people to function more effectively in the contemporary global community,” according to its incorporation documents.

Wright replaced Kawananakoa as the sole trustee in mid-2018 and named the three Hawaiian leaders as trustees in a move, he said, that would give the foundation a voice in the court proceeding.

But a few months later Kawananakoa and her spouse filed a petition to amend the trust and, among other things, eliminate the foundation and create a new one.

Wright, who served as Kawananakoa’s attorney for two decades, has said he believes Kawananakoa is now being manipulated, and he fears the money will be lost to the Hawaiians.

The question of whether the existing foundation can be eliminated is likely to be one of the issues to be decided in court. Also to be decided is whether First Hawaiian Bank will be accepted as successor trustee replacing Wright.

In court last week Kawananakoa described the new trustees as her archenemies and indicated that she wanted to control the direction of the charity.

Stender, a former Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee, said in a previous interview that he had considered Kawananakoa a longtime friend and that while Kame‘eleihiwa may have engaged in a few skirmishes with Kawananakoa over the years, her intentions, like the rest of the board, are to carry out her wishes to help Hawaiians.

Asked for comment on Spar’s report, Roseanne Goo, attorney for the Kawananakoa Foundation, declined, describing the release of the sealed filing as “extremely unfortunate.”

Goo did say the petition for a conservator was pursued by the foundation directors and Kawananakoa’s former housekeeper Thongbay Smart because they believed that Kawananakoa is no long able to discern who is and is not acting in her best interest.

“Going forward it will be important that actions taken on Ms. Kawananakoa’s behalf be done so by an independent conservator acting in her best interest or the conflicts and self-interested agendas will continue to drive the litigation,” Goo said in a statement. “Action taken on her behalf in this manner will benefit Ms. Kawananakoa and help to safeguard her interests in the ongoing litigation that has strained her trust by millions of dollars, mainly for attorney’s and professional fees.”

In his evaluation, Spar agreed with Los Angeles colleague Dr. David Trader, the psychiatrist hired by the court to conduct an independent medical evaluation of Kawananakoa, saying Kawananakoa likely meets the criteria for appointment of a conservator as spelled out by Hawaii state law.

In testing, Spar wrote that Kawananakoa scored in the superior range for her age and education in various areas, and she displayed intact reasoning.

But Spar also said Kawananakoa’s ability to articulate her understanding of her financial circumstances was generally limited by her poor recall of names, dates and facts, and several mental functions that make up her ability to make decisions appeared to at least be mildly impaired.

“While I believe (Kawananakoa) has the ability to receive information and make and communicate decisions, her ability to evaluate information could be negatively affected by her impaired recall of relevant events and facts,” he wrote.

In his court order, Ashford said he found Trader’s analysis and conclusions to be far more persuasive than the opinions and conclusions of Spar and the other doctors hired by the defense to examine Kawananakoa.

Trader’s report and other filings pertaining to Kawananakoa’s finances and health remain under court seal under an order by Ashford.