Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-50 (2026)

Modification of decree, rehearing

✓ current as of July 2026

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

§571-50 Modification of decree, rehearing. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, any decree or order of the court may be modified at any time.

(b) At any time during supervision of a child the court may issue notice or other appropriate process to the child if the child is of sufficient age to understand the nature of the process, to the parents, and to any other necessary parties to appear at a hearing on a charge of violation of the terms of supervision, for any change in or modification of the decree or for discharge. The provisions of this chapter relating to process, custody, and detention at other stages of the proceeding shall be applicable.

(c) A parent, guardian, custodian, or next friend of any child whose status has been adjudicated by the court, or any adult affected by a decree of the court, at any time may petition the court for a rehearing on the ground that new evidence, which was not known or not available through the exercise of due diligence at the time of the original hearing and that might affect the decree, has been discovered. Upon a satisfactory showing of this evidence, the court shall order a new hearing and make any disposition of the case that the facts and the best interests of the child warrant.

(d) A parent, guardian, or next friend of a child whose legal custody has been transferred by the court to an institution, facility, agency, or person may petition the court for modification or revocation of the decree, on the ground that the legal custodian has wrongfully denied application for the release of the child or has failed to act upon it within a reasonable time, or has acted in an arbitrary manner not consistent with the welfare of the child or the public interest. An institution, facility, agency, or person vested with legal custody of a child may petition the court for a renewal, modification, or revocation of the custody order on the ground that the change is necessary for the welfare of the child or in the public interest. The court may dismiss the petition if on preliminary investigation it finds the petition without substance. If the court is of the opinion that the decree should be reviewed, it shall conduct a hearing on notice to all parties concerned, and may enter an order continuing, modifying, or terminating the decree.

(e) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the court's authority with respect to the review, rehearing, renewal, modification, or revocation of decrees, judgments, or orders entered in the hereinbelow listed classes of proceedings shall be limited by any specific limitations set forth in the statutes governing these proceedings or in any other specifically applicable statutes or rules. These proceedings are as follows:

(1) Annulment, divorce, separation, and other proceedings under chapter 580;

(2) Adoption proceedings under chapter 578;

(3) Parentage proceedings under chapter 584A;

(4) Termination of parental rights proceedings under this chapter; and

(5) State hospital commitment proceedings under chapter 334.

(f) A decree, judgment, or order committing a child to the care of the director of human services shall be reviewable under this section at the instance of others other than duly authorized representatives of the department only after a lapse of thirty days following the date of the decree, judgment, or order, and thereafter only at intervals of no less than one year.

(g) Notwithstanding this section, the court shall not conduct a rehearing of any petition, filed under section 571-11(1), that, following a hearing, has been denied or dismissed. [L 1965, c 232, pt of §1; Supp, §333-26; HRS §571-50; am L 1976, c 85, §13; am L 1980, c 232, §28; gen ch 1985; am L 1990, c 34, §16; am L 1995, c 189, §§13, 26; am L 1998, c 133, §5; am L 2025, c 298, §12]

Rules of Court

Reconsideration, see HFCR rule 59.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: In the Interest of Doe, 73 P.3d 29 (Haw. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Interest of Doe, 73 P.3d 29 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 8× “While the court may exercise its authority to order placement of minors on probation, it must do so pursuant to HRS § 571-50 (1993), which requires prior notice and a hearing.”

Doe v. Doe, 52 P.3d 255 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 4× “HRS § 571-50 (Supp.2001), relating to the ability of a family court to modify an order or decree, states that the court's authority in this respect is limited for paternity determinations by the provisions in HRS chapter 584: Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this…”

Doe v. Doe, 44 P.3d 1085 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 2× “See HRS § 571-50 ("[A]ny decree or order of the [family] court may be modified at any time.”

In the Interest of Doe, 30 P.3d 269 (Haw. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Instead, HRS § 571-50 7 clearly sets forth the procedural mechanism to be used by the Family Court to adjudicate violations of Protective Supervision.”

In the Interest of Doe, 22 P.3d 987 (Haw. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “We observe, additionally, that HRS § 571-50 further provides that a decree issued under HRS § 571—48 may be modified at any time, and in the event of a “violation of the terms of supervision,” the family court may convene “a hearing on a charge” to that effect.”

Dl v. Cl., 146 Haw. 415 (Haw. 2020). · cites it 13× “6 HRS § 571-50 provides, in relevant part: Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, any decree or order of the court may be modified at any time.”

J.L. v. M.V., 154 Haw. 417 (Haw. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “15 (2002); see HRS § 571-50 (2018). The record does not support the family court's mixed finding and conclusion that Father intended to "possibly become a vexatious litigant.”

In re: BM, 153 Haw. 260 (Haw. App. 2023). “" The memorandum supporting the Motion asserted that "[w]ithout a hearing, notice, and an opportunity to be heard, the Family Court denied [BM] the due process of law guaranteed him by article I, section 5 of the Hawai#i State Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the…”

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.