Under FROE 902 (1)(4)(11) rule, they might be able to challenge it, but discovery wouldn't necessarily be granted. That rule is pretty clear what qualifies as an official record. So long as appropriate notice was given to opposing counsel, I believe a certified copy, with seal and signature would be admitted into evidence, without much fanfare.
If it was challenged, this is how we'd see either sworn testimony or an affidavit from HI official to authenticate such a record. That testimony of authenticity - if provided by HI official - would be a HUGE hurdle to get past. As a practical matter, it's tough to argue that a certified copy isn't genuine and accurate if the certifying official swears that it is.
Seals are important on official government records. They carry tremendous legal weight and aren't there merely for decoration. FWIW.
I don't know that anyone would swear that the information is accurate, but rather than it reflects the information on the original Certificate, which might have been fraudulently submitted. This would be easy to do, if one claimed a "home birth". In '61 the child would not have needed to be physically present in Hawaii for that to happen.