§571-13 Retention of jurisdiction.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, jurisdiction obtained by the
court in the case of a minor may be retained by it, for the purposes of this
chapter, after the minor becomes eighteen years of age until the full term for
which any order entered shall have expired. Further, in the case of any person
who is alleged to have committed an offense under section 571-11 prior to
reaching eighteen years of age, the court shall have jurisdiction after the
person becomes eighteen for the purpose of holding hearings and/or entering
orders of disposition concerning the alleged offenses or for the purpose of
making and issuing orders for pre-trial detention of persons aged eighteen
years or older to an adult correctional facility, when the person is alleged to
have committed an act or acts during the person's minority that would
constitute a violation of section 571-11(1). This section shall not be
construed, however, to confer any jurisdiction upon the family court over a
person for any criminal act committed after the person achieves eighteen years
of age. [L 1965, c 232, pt of §1; Supp, §333-10; HRS §571-13; am L 1972, c 2,
pt of §33; am L 1974, c 148, §1; am L 1976, c 85, §5; am L 1980, c 303, pt of
§7(2); am L 1981, c 206, §2; am L 1998, c 190, §3]
Case Notes
Cited: 50 H. 613, 446 P.2d 561 (1968).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case:
In Interest of Doe, 928 P.2d 883 (Haw. 1996).
In Interest of Doe, 928 P.2d 883 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 7× “” HRS § 571-13 (1993). Additionally, in the case of minors alleged to have committed an offense that brings them 'within the purview of HRS § 571-11 prior to reaching eighteen years of age, the court may retain jurisdiction “after the person becomes eighteen for the purpose of…”
State v. English, 594 P.2d 1069 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 2× “HRS §§ 571-13, 571- 48 (1976). On the other hand, once waived by the family court, appellee would have been susceptible to criminal conviction and long-term imprisonment.”
In the Interest of Doe, 594 P.2d 1084 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 2× “13 Currently designated HRS § 571-13 (1976). 14 Upon questions propounded to him by Mr.”
State v. English, 594 P.2d 1069 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 2× “HRS §§ 571-13, 571-48 (1976). On the other hand, once waived by the family court, appellee would have been susceptible to criminal conviction and long-term imprisonment.”
In the Interest of Doe, 950 P.2d 701 (Haw. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Neither does HRS § 352-9 (1993) or § 571-13 (1993). They state as follows: § 352-9 Period committed, (a) All persons committed to the [Hawai'i] youth correctional facilities shall be committed for the period of their minority or as otherwise ordered by the court.”
State v. Buckman, 770 P.2d 418 (Haw. 1989).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 571-13 provides that “in the case of any person who is alleged to have committed an offense under section 571-11 prior to reaching eighteen years of age, the [family] court shall havejurisdiction after the person becomes eighteen for the purpose of holding hearings and/ or…”
State v. Miyahira, 47 P.3d 754 (Haw. App. 2002).
“(7) In all proceedings for pre-trial detention or waiver of jurisdiction over an adult who was a child at the time *290 of an alleged criminal act as provided in section 571-13 or 571-22. (8) In all proceedings under chapter • 586, Domestic Abuse Protective Orders.”
In re Interest of Doe, 623 P.2d 1262 (Haw. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “On June 28, 1979, Judge Rubin (1) extended the family court’s jurisdiction over appellant until his nineteenth birthday (see HRS § 571-13 (1976)), and (2) committed appellant to HYCF until his nineteenth birthday, but (3) stayed the mittimus on the condi *614 tion that appellant…”
In the Interest of Doe, 981 P.2d 704 (Haw. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “2d 883, 890 (1996) (citing HRS § 571-13 (1993)). BACKGROUND The facts are not in dispute.”
In re: B.M., 155 Haw. 259 (Haw. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “HRS § 571-13 (2006) (some emphasis added).”
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.