Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 571
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61 (2026)

  Termination of parental rights; petition

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PART VI.  TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

 

     §571-61  Termination of parental rights; petition.  (a)  Relinquishment.  The parents or either parent or the surviving parent who desire to relinquish parental rights to any natural or adopted child and thus make the child available for adoption or readoption, may petition the family court of the circuit in which the parents or parent resides, or of the circuit in which the child resides, or was born, for the entry of a judgment of termination of parental rights.  The petition shall be verified and shall be substantially in a form as may be prescribed by the judge or senior judge of the family court.  The petition may be filed at any time following the birthing parent's sixth month of pregnancy; provided that no judgment may be entered upon a petition concerning an unborn child until after the birth of the child and in respect to a legal parent or parents until the petitioner or petitioners have filed in the termination proceeding a written reaffirmation of their desires as expressed in the petition or in respect to a legal parent or parents until the petitioner or petitioners have been given no less than ten days' notice of a proposal for the entry of judgment and an opportunity to be heard in connection with the proposal.

     (b)  Involuntary termination.

     (1)  The family courts may terminate the parental rights with respect to any child as to any legal parent:

          (A)  Who has deserted the child without affording means of identification for a period of at least ninety days;

          (B)  Who has voluntarily surrendered the care and custody of the child to another for a period of at least two years;

          (C)  Who, when the child is in the custody of another, has failed to communicate with the child when able to do so for a period of at least one year;

          (D)  Who, when the child is in the custody of another, has failed to provide for care and support of the child when able to do so for a period of at least one year;

          (E)  Whose child has been removed from the parent's physical custody pursuant to legally authorized judicial action under section 571-11(9), and who is found to be unable to provide now and in the foreseeable future the care necessary for the well-being of the child;

          (F)  Who is found by the court to be mentally ill or intellectually disabled and incapacitated from giving consent to the adoption of or from providing now and in the foreseeable future the care necessary for the well-being of the child; or

          (G)  Who is found not to be the child's natural or adoptive non-birthing parent.

     (2)  The family courts may terminate the parental rights in respect to any minor of any natural but not legal non-birthing parent who is an adjudicated, presumed or concerned non-birthing parent under chapter 578, or who is named as the non-birthing parent on the child's birth certificate:

          (A)  Who falls within paragraph (1)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F);

          (B)  Whose child is sought to be adopted by the child's birthing parent's spouse and the birthing parent's spouse has lived with the child and the child's legal birthing parent for a period of at least one year;

          (C)  Who is only a concerned non-birthing parent who has failed to file a petition for the adoption of the child or whose petition for the adoption of the child has been denied; or

          (D)  Who is found to be an unfit or improper parent or to be financially or otherwise unable to give the child a proper home and education.

     (3)  In respect to any proceedings under paragraphs (1) and (2), the authority to terminate parental rights may be exercised by the court only when a verified petition, substantially in the form above prescribed, has been filed by some responsible adult person on behalf of the child in the family court of the circuit in which the parent resides or the child resides or was born and the court has conducted a hearing of the petition.  A copy of the petition, together with notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof, shall be personally served at least twenty days before the hearing upon the parent whose rights are sought to be terminated.  If personal service cannot be effected within the State, service of the notice may be made as provided in section 634-23 or 634-24.

     (4)  The family courts may terminate the parental rights in respect to any child as to any natural non-birthing parent who is not the child's legal, adjudicated, presumed or concerned non-birthing parent under chapter 578.

     (5)  The family courts may terminate the parental rights in respect to any child of any natural parent upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parent committed sexual assault of the other natural parent, or an equivalent offense under the laws of another state, territory, possession, or Native American tribe where the offense occurred, and the child was conceived as a result of the sexual assault perpetrated by the parent whose rights are sought to be terminated; provided that:

          (A)  The court shall accept, as conclusive proof of the sexual assault, a guilty plea or conviction of the child's natural parent for the sexual assault, or an equivalent offense under the laws of another state, territory, possession, or Native American tribe where the offense occurred, of the other natural parent;

          (B)  Termination shall mean, when used with respect to parental rights in this paragraph, a complete and final termination of the parent's right to custody of, guardianship of, visitation with, access to, and inheritance from a child;

          (C)  The termination of parental rights shall not affect the obligation of the child's natural parent to support the child;

          (D)  The court may order the child's natural parent to pay child support;

          (E)  It is presumed that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child if the child was conceived as a result of the sexual assault;

          (F)  This paragraph shall not apply if subsequent to the date of the sexual assault, the child's natural parent and custodial natural parent cohabitate and establish a mutual custodial environment for the child; and

          (G)  The custodial natural parent may petition the court to reinstate the child's natural parent's parental rights terminated pursuant to this paragraph.

     The authority provided under this section may be exercised under this chapter only when a verified petition, substantially in the form prescribed above, has been filed by some responsible adult person on behalf of the child in the family court of the circuit in which the parent resides or the child resides or was born, and the court has conducted a hearing of the petition.

     If the birthing parent of the child files with the petition an affidavit representing that the identity or whereabouts of the child's non-birthing parent is unknown to or not ascertainable by the birthing parent or that other good cause exists why notice cannot or should not be given to the non-birthing parent, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether notice is required.

     If the court finds that good cause exists why notice cannot or should not be given to the child's non-birthing parent, and that the non-birthing parent is neither the legal nor adjudicated nor presumed non-birthing parent of the child, nor has the non-birthing parent demonstrated a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the existence or welfare of the child, the court may enter an order authorizing the termination of the non-birthing parent's parental rights and the subsequent adoption of the child without notice to the non-birthing parent. [L 1965, c 232, pt of §1; Supp, §333-29; HRS §571-61; am L 1970, c 205, §2; am L 1971, c 46, §1; am L 1973, c 211, §1(h); am L 1974, c 74, §1; am L 1976, c 85, §14; am L 1980, c 55, §1; am L 1982, c 49, §1; am L 1983, c 171, §4; am L 1993, c 160, §2; am L 2011, c 220, §17; am L 2013, c 253, §3; am L 2016, c 213, §2; am L 2023, c 160, §2]

 

Case Notes

 

  No constitutional right of minor mother was violated when during her absence from hearing she was represented by guardian ad litem.  52 H. 395, 477 P.2d 780 (1970).

  In subsection (b)(1)(D):  "Care and support" refers exclusively to financial support; involuntary termination may not occur absent finding of purpose to abdicate parental rights; one year period does not refer solely to the year immediately preceding petition's filing; not unconstitutionally vague.  64 H. 85, 637 P.2d 760 (1981).

  "Foreseeable future" means three years from the filing date of the petition for termination of parental rights.  8 H. App. 66, 793 P.2d 669 (1990).

  Record of child protective services case can be considered in a case brought under this section.  8 H. App. 161, 795 P.2d 294 (1990).

  Father's right to custody was terminated and children were placed in the custody of foster parents.  8 H. App. 377, 805 P.2d 1215 (1991).

  Nothing in subsection (a) or chapter 587 indicates that when the department of human services and the affected parents settle a termination proceeding, they may do so only by resorting to a subsection (a) proceeding.  90 H. 200 (App.), 978 P.2d 166 (1999).

  Trial court erred in applying clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in deciding whether natural father was an unfit parent in a petition by grandparents for guardianship of the person of their grandson, as a guardianship of the person of a minor is neither absolute nor irrevocable, and the heightened standard of proof attendant upon those attributes of a termination of parental rights did not apply.  106 H. 75 (App.), 101 P.3d 684 (2004).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case: Woodruff v. Keale, 637 P.2d 760 (Haw. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Woodruff v. Keale, 637 P.2d 760 (Haw. 1981). · cites it 30× “In the case of involuntary termination, it is only after the parents have demonstrated some form of “unfitness” as defined by the legislature in HRS § 571-61(b) that the state intervenes as parens patriae and considers the best interests of the child.”
In the Interest of Doe, 978 P.2d 166 (Haw. App. 1999). · cites it 17× “In their *207 motion, Parents urged the court to set aside the order on the basis that (1) HRS chapter 587 “does not allow for consensual termination of parental rights”; (2) even if it did, “such relinquishment of parental rights must conform to the requirements of § 571-61 and…”
In Int. of Male Child, Born 5/27/83, 793 P.2d 669 (Haw. App. 1990). · cites it 14× “) *69 Assuming the Woodruff requirements apply to Hawaii’s termination of parental right statute, HRS §§ 571-61, -62, -63, we conclude that it satisfies the Woodruff requirements.”
In the Interest of Doe, 20 P.3d 616 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 2× “Prior to Santosky , this court had held that the process due a parent during parental termination proceedings under HRS § 571-61, et seq., obligated the state, inter alia, to adduce clear and convincing evidence that severance of the parent-child relationship was in the child’s…”
In Re Doe, 478 P.2d 844 (Haw. 1970). · cites it 16× “) that the parental rights of the mother as the sole legal parent of the child be terminated; (2) that the department of social services be given the care and custody of the child and be authorized to consent to the child's adoption by suitable adoptive parents and (3) that the…”
In the Interest of Doe, 974 P.2d 1067 (Haw. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “While a three-year period is common to both HRS §§ 571-61(b)(1)(E) and 587-73(a)(2), in the latter, the three-year period defines the limits of that “reasonable period of time” for which a parent’s willingness and ability to provide a safe family home must be forecasted.”
Monroe Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Kelli B., 2004 WI 48 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 15-11-94 (2003); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61 (2003); Idaho Code § 16-2005 (Michie 2003); 705 Ill.”
In Re Ta.l. in Re A.L. in Petition of R.W. & A.W. in Re Petition of E.A.A.H. & T.L., 149 A.3d 1060 (D.C. 2016). “§ 15-11-310 ; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61 to -63; Me. Rev.”
In the Interest of Doe, 20 P.3d 634 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 15× “Part VI of HRS chapter 571 includes three sections: HRS § 571-61 (1993), 27 which sets forth the grounds upon which parental rights can be terminated, as well as the form, contents, and service required for a petition filed to involuntarily terminate parental rights; HRS §…”
Jb v. Fla. Dept. of Child. & Fam. Servs., 768 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2000). “§ 15-11-83(c) (1998) (at least 30 days' notice); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 571-61(b)(3) (1998) (at least 20 days' notice); Idaho Code § 16-1607 (a) & (f) (1998) (at least 48 hours' notice); § 705 Ill.”
State v. Alagao, 883 P.2d 682 (Haw. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Stepparents have no rights with respect to the involuntary termination of parental rights, HRS § 571-61(b) (1985), or adoptions. HRS § 578-2 (Supp.”
In Re the Guardianship of Doe, 4 P.3d 508 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “1999) (Hearing; investigation; decree); HRS § 571-61 (1993) (Termination of parental rights; petition).”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(a) — 2 cases
In the Interest of Doe, 978 P.2d 166 (Haw. App. 1999). “In their *207 motion, Parents urged the court to set aside the order on the basis that (1) HRS chapter 587 “does not allow for consensual termination of parental rights”; (2) even if it did, “such relinquishment of parental rights must conform to the requirements of § 571-61 and…”
In re: KKA, 475 P.3d 1190 (Haw. App. 2020).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(b) — 6 cases
Woodruff v. Keale, 637 P.2d 760 (Haw. 1981). “In the case of involuntary termination, it is only after the parents have demonstrated some form of “unfitness” as defined by the legislature in HRS § 571-61(b) that the state intervenes as parens patriae and considers the best interests of the child.”
State v. Alagao, 883 P.2d 682 (Haw. App. 1994). “Stepparents have no rights with respect to the involuntary termination of parental rights, HRS § 571-61(b) (1985), or adoptions. HRS § 578-2 (Supp.”
In the Interest of Doe, 20 P.3d 634 (Haw. App. 2000). “Part VI of HRS chapter 571 includes three sections: HRS § 571-61 (1993), 27 which sets forth the grounds upon which parental rights can be terminated, as well as the form, contents, and service required for a petition filed to involuntarily terminate parental rights; HRS §…”
Hawaii ex rel. Louie v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Haw. 2012).
In Interest of Ag, 165 P.3d 1048 (Haw. App. 2007).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(b)(1) — 1 case
Woodruff v. Keale, 637 P.2d 760 (Haw. 1981). “In the case of involuntary termination, it is only after the parents have demonstrated some form of “unfitness” as defined by the legislature in HRS § 571-61(b) that the state intervenes as parens patriae and considers the best interests of the child.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(b)(1)(C) — 2 cases
Woodruff v. Keale, 637 P.2d 760 (Haw. 1981). “In the case of involuntary termination, it is only after the parents have demonstrated some form of “unfitness” as defined by the legislature in HRS § 571-61(b) that the state intervenes as parens patriae and considers the best interests of the child.”
In re Doe, 805 P.2d 1215 (Haw. App. 1991).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(b)(1)(D) — 1 case
Woodruff v. Keale, 637 P.2d 760 (Haw. 1981). “In the case of involuntary termination, it is only after the parents have demonstrated some form of “unfitness” as defined by the legislature in HRS § 571-61(b) that the state intervenes as parens patriae and considers the best interests of the child.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(b)(1)(E) — 7 cases
In Int. of Male Child, Born 5/27/83, 793 P.2d 669 (Haw. App. 1990). “) *69 Assuming the Woodruff requirements apply to Hawaii’s termination of parental right statute, HRS §§ 571-61, -62, -63, we conclude that it satisfies the Woodruff requirements.”
In the Interest of Doe, 974 P.2d 1067 (Haw. App. 1999). “While a three-year period is common to both HRS §§ 571-61(b)(1)(E) and 587-73(a)(2), in the latter, the three-year period defines the limits of that “reasonable period of time” for which a parent’s willingness and ability to provide a safe family home must be forecasted.”
In re Doe, 795 P.2d 294 (Haw. App. 1990).
In re R Child.., 145 Haw. 477 (Haw. 2019).
In Re Tw, 248 P.3d 234 (Haw. App. 2011).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(b)(3) — 6 cases
Jb v. Fla. Dept. of Child. & Fam. Servs., 768 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2000). “§ 15-11-83(c) (1998) (at least 30 days' notice); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 571-61(b)(3) (1998) (at least 20 days' notice); Idaho Code § 16-1607 (a) & (f) (1998) (at least 48 hours' notice); § 705 Ill.”
In the Interest of TW, 248 P.3d 234 (Haw. App. 2011).
JB v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 734 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
In Re Tw, 248 P.3d 234 (Haw. App. 2011).
In re: JB, 506 P.3d 881 (Haw. App. 2022).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(b)(l) — 1 case
Woodruff v. Keale, 637 P.2d 760 (Haw. 1981). “In the case of involuntary termination, it is only after the parents have demonstrated some form of “unfitness” as defined by the legislature in HRS § 571-61(b) that the state intervenes as parens patriae and considers the best interests of the child.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(b)(l)(B) — 1 case
In re Doe, 805 P.2d 1215 (Haw. App. 1991).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(b)(l)(D) — 1 case
Woodruff v. Keale, 637 P.2d 760 (Haw. 1981). “In the case of involuntary termination, it is only after the parents have demonstrated some form of “unfitness” as defined by the legislature in HRS § 571-61(b) that the state intervenes as parens patriae and considers the best interests of the child.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-61(b)(l)(E) — 3 cases
In the Interest of Doe, 974 P.2d 1067 (Haw. App. 1999). “While a three-year period is common to both HRS §§ 571-61(b)(1)(E) and 587-73(a)(2), in the latter, the three-year period defines the limits of that “reasonable period of time” for which a parent’s willingness and ability to provide a safe family home must be forecasted.”
In Int. of Male Child, Born 5/27/83, 793 P.2d 669 (Haw. App. 1990). “) *69 Assuming the Woodruff requirements apply to Hawaii’s termination of parental right statute, HRS §§ 571-61, -62, -63, we conclude that it satisfies the Woodruff requirements.”
In re Doe, 795 P.2d 294 (Haw. App. 1990).
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.