PART I.
ESTABLISHMENT; PERSONNEL
§571-1 Construction and purpose of chapter.
This chapter shall be liberally construed to the end that children and families
whose rights and well-being are jeopardized shall be assisted and protected,
and secured in those rights through action by the court; that the court may
formulate a plan adapted to the requirements of the child and the child's
family and the necessary protection of the community, and may utilize all state
and community resources to the extent possible in its implementation.
This chapter creates within this State a system
of family courts and it shall be a policy and purpose of said courts to promote
the reconciliation of distressed juveniles with their families, foster the
rehabilitation of juveniles in difficulty, render appropriate punishment to
offenders, and reduce juvenile delinquency. The court shall conduct all
proceedings to the end that no adjudication by the court of the status of any
child under this chapter shall be deemed a conviction; no such adjudication shall
impose any civil disability ordinarily resulting from conviction; no child
shall be found guilty or be deemed a criminal by reason of such adjudication;
no child shall be charged with crime or be convicted in any court except as
otherwise provided in this chapter; and all children found responsible for
offenses shall receive dispositions that provide incentive for reform or
deterrence from further misconduct, or both. The disposition made of a child
or any evidence given in the court, shall not operate to disqualify the child
in any civil service or military application or appointment. Any evidence
given in any case under section 571-11 shall not in any civil, criminal, or
other cause in any court be lawful or proper evidence against the child for any
purpose whatever except in subsequent cases involving the same child under
section 571-11. [L 1965, c 232, pt of §1; Supp, §333-1; HRS §571-1; am L 1976,
c 85, §2; am L 1980, c 303, §1; gen ch 1985]
Case Notes
Inherent powers give family court jurisdiction to determine
rights of natural father of illegitimate child. 56 H. 462, 541 P.2d 13 (1975).
As this section mandates against treating juvenile
adjudications as convictions, appellate court erred in holding that defendant's
prior juvenile adjudication of driving without no-fault insurance constituted a
conviction for purposes of applying the repeat offender sentencing provisions
of §431:10C-117 (1993) to defendant's subsequent offense of driving without
no-fault insurance. 92 H. 521, 993 P.2d 555 (2000).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases, 1970–2018 · leading case:
State v. Riveira, 993 P.2d 580 (Haw. App. 2000).
State v. Riveira, 993 P.2d 580 (Haw. App. 2000).
· cites it 118× “Riveira filed a sentencing memorandum on May 11, 1998, contending that, because he was adjudicated as a juvenile for the previous offense, HRS § 571-1 prohibits consideration of the 1993 juvenile adjudication as a prior conviction for sentencing purposes.”
State v. Schnabel., 279 P.3d 1237 (Haw. 2012).
· cites it 44× “” Petitioner contends that such use is also prohibited under HRS § 571-1 (2006 Repl.).19 In that vein, Petitioner points out that in State v.”
State v. Riveira, 993 P.2d 555 (Haw. 2000).
· cites it 12× “In contrast to the ICA’s majority opinion, we hold that HRS § 571-1 (1993) 2 mandates against treating juvenile adjudications as convictions.”
In the Interest of Doe Child., 93 P.3d 1145 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 3× “HRS § 571-1 (1993) requires that HRS chapter 571, regarding "Family Courts,” shall be liberally construed to the end that children .”
In Re Doe, 478 P.2d 844 (Haw. 1970).
· cites it 10× “HRS § 571-1 enjoins the family courts to construe the chapter liberally to the end that the best interests of any child coming within their jurisdiction be served.”
In the Interest of Doe, 26 P.3d 562 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 571-1 (1993). “If a juvenile ... can purposely or knowingly disregard Family Court orders without sanction and with impunity .”
In Interest of Doe, 928 P.2d 883 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 571-1 (1993). The jurisdiction of the family court over minors is set forth in HRS § 571-11 (1993), which provides in relevant part: Jurisdiction; children.”
In Re the Guardianship of Carlsmith, 151 P.3d 692 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 571-1 (1993) (stating that “[t]his chapter creates within this State a system of family courts”).”
State v. Sylva, 605 P.2d 496 (Haw. 1980).
· cites it 2× “1 HRS § 571-1 reads in part: This chapter creates within this State a system of family courts and it shall he a policy and purpose of said courts to conduct all proceedings to the end that no adjudication by the court of the status of any child under this chapter shall be deemed…”
Makanui v. Dep't of Educ., 721 P.2d 165 (Haw. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “ree HRS § 571-1 (1976), Barbarais no longer authorized to maintain the suit for Abraham in a representative capacity.”
In re Interest of Doe, 623 P.2d 1262 (Haw. App. 1981).
· cites it 7× “Appellant contends that Judge Huddy (1) had the power under HRS § 571-1 5 to amend Judge Rubin’s *616 order, and (2) would not have so ruled had he been aware of his power.”
In the Interest of Doe, 91 P.3d 485 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 2× “1995); HRS § 571-1 (1993); HRS § 571-41(f) (1993).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.