Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 571

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14

  Jurisdiction; adults

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §571-14  Jurisdiction; adults.  (a)  Except as provided in sections 603-21.5 and 604-8, the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction:

     (1)  To try any offense committed against a child by the child's parent or guardian or by any other person having the child's legal or physical custody, and any violation of section 302A-1135, 707-726, 707-727, 709-902, 709-903, 709-903.5, 709-904, 709-905, or 709-906, whether or not included in other provisions of this paragraph or paragraph (2);

     (2)  To try any adult charged with:

          (A)  Deserting, abandoning, or failing to provide support for any person in violation of law;

          (B)  An offense, other than a felony, against the person of the defendant's spouse;

          (C)  Any violation of an order issued pursuant to chapter 586; or

          (D)  Any violation of an order issued by a family court judge;

     (3)  In all proceedings under chapter 580, and in all proceedings under chapter 584A;

     (4)  In proceedings under chapter 575, the Uniform Desertion and Nonsupport Act, and under chapter 576B, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act;

     (5)  For commitment of an adult alleged to be mentally defective or mentally ill;

     (6)  In all proceedings for support between parent and child or between spouses;

     (7)  In all proceedings for pre-trial detention or waiver of jurisdiction over an adult who was a child at the time 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; and

     (9)  For the protection of vulnerable adults under chapter 346, part X;

provided that in any case within paragraph (1) or (2), the court, in its discretion, may waive its jurisdiction over the offense charged; provided further that in any case within paragraph (3), (4), or (6), the attorney general, through the child support enforcement agency, may exercise concurrent jurisdiction as provided in chapter 576E.

     (b)  The court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the district court over violations of sections 707-712, 707-717, 707-722, 708-822, 708-823, 710-1010.5, 711-1106, and 711-1106.5 when multiple offenses are charged through complaint or indictment and at least one offense is a violation of an order issued pursuant to chapter 586 or a violation of section 709-906.

     (c)  The court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court over violations of section 711-1106.4.

     [(d)]  The court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court in all proceedings to appoint a guardian of an adult. [L 1965, c 232, pt of §1; Supp, §333-11; am L 1967, c 56, §2; HRS §571-14; am L 1973, c 211, §1(1); am L 1976, c 85, §6; am L 1980, c 232, §27; am L 1982, c 238, §2; am L 1983, c 79, §1; am L 1984, c 50, §1; am L 1986, c 285, §1; am L 1988, c 154, §3; am L 1989, c 61, §1 and c 381, §3; am L 1992, c 86, §1; am L 1996, c 89, §17; am L 1997, c 295, §2; am L 1998, c 64, §1 and c 190, §4; am L 2002, c 9, §1; am L 2004, c 18, §1 and c 161, §30; am L 2008, c 154, §26; am L 2025, c 298, §11]

 

Cross References

 

  Commitment, see chapters 333F and 334.

  Guardianship, see chapter 560, article V.

 

Case Notes

 

  Even assuming that, for purposes of this section, defendant did not have physical custody of complainant during the times of the alleged offenses, and the family court was, therefore, without jurisdiction over those counts of the indictment, the judge, in the judge's capacity as a circuit court judge, properly exercised jurisdiction over those counts under §571-4.  103 H. 214, 81 P.3d 394 (2003).

  The fact that defendant was a "family or household member" for purposes of §709-906 did not satisfy paragraph (1)'s subject matter jurisdiction factual criteria because a "family or household member" is not by that fact "the child's parent or guardian or … any other person having the child's legal or physical custody".  77 H. 260 (App.), 883 P.2d 682 (1994).

  The question whether defendant had legal or physical custody of stepdaughter was subject matter jurisdictional question of fact for court to decide, not an essential element of the alleged offense for the jury to decide.  77 H. 260 (App.), 883 P.2d 682 (1994).

  No equal protection violation for use of preponderance of evidence standard of proof for §586-5.5 as family and household members not suspect class and rational basis underlying this standard adopted by legislature under this chapter for chapter 586 was to facilitate and expedite judicial issuance of protective orders.  85 H. 197 (App.), 940 P.2d 404 (1997).

  Under paragraph (8) and §571-42, family court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over chapter 586 proceedings and applicable standard of proof to be applied in those proceedings is preponderance of the evidence.  85 H. 197 (App.), 940 P.2d 404 (1997).

  Where family court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under this section, charge of harassment against defendant husband remanded for dismissal.  98 H. 287 (App.), 47 P.3d 754 (2002).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: State v. Milne. ICA mem. op., filed 06/26/2020.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Milne. ICA mem. op., filed 06/26/2020. (2021) haw · cites it 45× “The ICA stated Act 64 of 1998, which added subsection (b) to HRS § 571-14, also showed the legislature intended to provide for concurrent jurisdiction, even when the multiple charged offenses involved different complaining witnesses.”
State v. Malave. (2020) haw · cites it 10× “” 9 We also note that while HRS § 571-14 allows the family court “exclusive original jurisdiction” over certain cases, it also allows waiver of that jurisdiction.”
Adams v. State (2003) haw · cites it 8× “On July 10, 2001, Adams filed an amended Rule 40 petition with the third circuit court, asserting a fourth ground for relief: the family court lacked jurisdiction over the indictment inasmuch Adams did not have the requisite relationship with Complainant B under HRS § 571-14(1).”
State v. Miyahira (2002) hawapp · cites it 11× “First, HRS § 571—14(a)(2)(B) confers upon the family court exclusive original jurisdiction to try any adult charged with an offense, other than a felony, against the person of the defendant’s husband or wife.”
Torres v. Torres (2003) haw · cites it 4× “Second, a QDRO determination of the Order must be performed "by the plan administrator, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise.”
Coyle v. Compton (1997) hawapp · cites it 6× “) HRS § 571-14 (1993) establishes the family court system, and HRS § 571-14(8) (1993) mandates that “[t]he [family] court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction .”
State v. Pedro. (2021) haw · cites it 3× “3d 998 (2020), we explained that since “circuit court judges sitting in family court have authority over both circuit and family matters,” when a circuit court judge presides over a family court matter, it does not matter whether or not the family court has jurisdiction under…”
State v. Alagao (1994) hawapp · cites it 6× “The Court finds and concludes that an examination of Section 571-14, H.R.S., reveals by implication that Family Court has exclusive and original jurisdiction over a step-parent [alleged] perpetrator of a crime committed against his or her stepchild.”
State v. Apollonio. (2013) haw · cites it 2× “2011), and family courts, see HRS § 571-14 (Supp.2011). For example, HRS § 603-21.”
Brooks v. Minn (1992) haw · cites it 4× “Minn further argues that: (1) the family court, pursuant to HRS §§ 571-14 (1985 & Supp.”
State v. Williams. (2020) haw · cites it 2× “At all times pertinent to this case (as well as now), the family court had exclusive original jurisdiction “[t]o try any offense committed against a child by the child’s parent or guardian or by any other person having the child’s legal or physical custody” pursuant to HRS §…”
Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie (2011) haw · cites it 2× “]" Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-14(a)(3) (Supp.2003). As set forth in *464 HRS § 580-1 [6] (2006 Repl.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(1) — 3 cases
Adams v. State (2003) haw “On July 10, 2001, Adams filed an amended Rule 40 petition with the third circuit court, asserting a fourth ground for relief: the family court lacked jurisdiction over the indictment inasmuch Adams did not have the requisite relationship with Complainant B under HRS § 571-14(1).”
State v. Alagao (1994) hawapp “The Court finds and concludes that an examination of Section 571-14, H.R.S., reveals by implication that Family Court has exclusive and original jurisdiction over a step-parent [alleged] perpetrator of a crime committed against his or her stepchild.”
Winterborne v. State (2004) hawapp
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(10) — 1 case
Estate of Kam (2006) haw
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(2) — 1 case
State v. Kipi (1991) haw
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(2)(B) — 1 case
State v. Dunn (1990) hawapp
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(3) — 1 case
Brooks v. Minn (1992) haw “Minn further argues that: (1) the family court, pursuant to HRS §§ 571-14 (1985 & Supp.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(8) — 1 case
Coyle v. Compton (1997) hawapp “) HRS § 571-14 (1993) establishes the family court system, and HRS § 571-14(8) (1993) mandates that “[t]he [family] court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(a) — 5 cases
State v. Malave. (2020) haw “” 9 We also note that while HRS § 571-14 allows the family court “exclusive original jurisdiction” over certain cases, it also allows waiver of that jurisdiction.”
State v. Pedro. (2021) haw “3d 998 (2020), we explained that since “circuit court judges sitting in family court have authority over both circuit and family matters,” when a circuit court judge presides over a family court matter, it does not matter whether or not the family court has jurisdiction under…”
Schenk v. Schenk (2003) hawapp
State v. Malave (2020) haw
In Re: Kaohu Jr. (2023) hawapp
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(a)(1) — 5 cases
State v. Williams. (2020) haw “At all times pertinent to this case (as well as now), the family court had exclusive original jurisdiction “[t]o try any offense committed against a child by the child’s parent or guardian or by any other person having the child’s legal or physical custody” pursuant to HRS §…”
State v. Malave. (2020) haw “” 9 We also note that while HRS § 571-14 allows the family court “exclusive original jurisdiction” over certain cases, it also allows waiver of that jurisdiction.”
State v. Pedro. (2021) haw “3d 998 (2020), we explained that since “circuit court judges sitting in family court have authority over both circuit and family matters,” when a circuit court judge presides over a family court matter, it does not matter whether or not the family court has jurisdiction under…”
State v. Amasiu (2024) hawapp
State v. Malave (2020) haw
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(a)(2)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Miyahira (2002) hawapp “First, HRS § 571—14(a)(2)(B) confers upon the family court exclusive original jurisdiction to try any adult charged with an offense, other than a felony, against the person of the defendant’s husband or wife.”
State v. Basnet. (2013) haw
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(a)(3) — 3 cases
Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie (2011) haw “]" Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-14(a)(3) (Supp.2003). As set forth in *464 HRS § 580-1 [6] (2006 Repl.”
Torres v. Torres (2003) haw “Second, a QDRO determination of the Order must be performed "by the plan administrator, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise.”
Williamson v. Williamson (2006) hawapp
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(a)(l) — 1 case
Winterborne v. State (2004) hawapp
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(b) — 4 cases
State v. Milne. ICA mem. op., filed 06/26/2020. (2021) haw “The ICA stated Act 64 of 1998, which added subsection (b) to HRS § 571-14, also showed the legislature intended to provide for concurrent jurisdiction, even when the multiple charged offenses involved different complaining witnesses.”
State v. Miyahira (2002) hawapp “First, HRS § 571—14(a)(2)(B) confers upon the family court exclusive original jurisdiction to try any adult charged with an offense, other than a felony, against the person of the defendant’s husband or wife.”
State v. Milne (2020) hawapp
State v. Milne (2020) hawapp
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(d) — 1 case
In Re the Guardianship of Doe (2008) hawapp
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14(l) — 1 case
State v. Alagao (1994) hawapp “The Court finds and concludes that an examination of Section 571-14, H.R.S., reveals by implication that Family Court has exclusive and original jurisdiction over a step-parent [alleged] perpetrator of a crime committed against his or her stepchild.”
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.