§586-3 Order for protection. (a)
There shall exist an action known as a petition for an order for protection in
cases of domestic abuse.
(b) A petition for relief under this chapter
may be made by:
(1) Any family or household member on the member's
own behalf or on behalf of a family or household member who is a minor or who
is an incapacitated person as defined in section 560:5-102 or who is physically
unable to go to the appropriate place to complete or file the petition;
(2) Any state agency on behalf of a person who is a
minor or who is an incapacitated person as defined in section 560:5-102 or a
person who is physically unable to go to the appropriate place to complete or
file the petition on behalf of that person;
(3) Any minor sixteen years of age or older on their
own behalf without the consent of a parent or legal guardian; or
(4) Any minor deemed emancipated pursuant to section
577-25.
(c) A petition for relief shall be in writing
upon forms provided by the court and shall allege, under penalty of perjury,
that: a past act or acts of abuse may have occurred; threats of abuse make it
probable that acts of abuse may be imminent; or extreme psychological abuse or
malicious property damage is imminent; and be accompanied by an affidavit made
under oath or a statement made under penalty of perjury stating the specific
facts and circumstances from which relief is sought.
(d) The family court shall designate an
employee or appropriate nonjudicial agency to assist the person in completing
the petition. [L 1982, c 123, pt of §2; am L 1983, c 18, §1; am L 1985, c 136,
§1; am L 1987, c 315, §1 and c 359, §1; am L 1997, c 322, §1; am L 2000, c 186,
§3; am L 2004, c 161, §31; am L 2023, c 259, §2]
Case Notes
Hawaii violation for breach of a protective order is
not similar to contempt of court for sentencing purposes. 631 F.3d 1021 (2011).
Based upon plain language of section, family court improperly
required complainant to show recent acts of abuse at hearing. 90 H. 76, 976
P.2d 390 (1998).
Family court did not err in issuing the ex parte temporary
restraining order and allowing it to remain in force until its expiration where
father's threat to hit minor again, in conjunction with the two prior acts of
physical harm as well as the allegation of recent psychological abuse, gave
rise to a reasonable conclusion that the risk of further harm persisted and
that a period of separation was necessary to prevent imminent harm. 125 H. 330
(App.), 260 P.3d 1148 (2011).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case:
Hill v. Inouye, 976 P.2d 390 (Haw. 1999).
Hill v. Inouye, 976 P.2d 390 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 18× “Hill, instead, argues that the family court should have applied HRS § 586-3 (Supp. 1997),' which does not require a showing of recent acts of abuse.”
Hamilton Ex Rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 193 P.3d 839 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Proceedings Before the Family Court As succinctly summarized by the ICA: On September 23, 2005, [Mother], on behalf of [Minor], filed an ex parte petition for a [TRO] against Father under [HRS] § 586-3 (1993 & Supp.2004). Father allegedly had physically and psychologically…”
Alvarez Fam. Trust v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of the Kaanapali Alii, 221 P.3d 452 (Haw. 2009).
· cites it 4× “As to Hill , in that case the family court refused to grant a temporary restraining order (TRO) after applying HRS § 586-4, "which requires a showing of recent acts of abuse" rather than HRS § 586-3, which does not require such a showing.”
Tortorello v. Tortorello, 153 P.3d 1117 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 586-3 [ (2006) ] (“petition for relief shall be in writing upon forms provided by the court” and the “family court shall designate an employee or appropriate nonjudicial'agency to assist the person in completing the petition.”
Kie v. McMahel, 984 P.2d 1264 (Haw. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “1997) is one for "a petition for an order of protection,” HRS § 586-3(a) (1993), the petition was entitled, "Ex parte Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order for Protection and Statement.”
State v. Sugihara, 68 P.3d 635 (Haw. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “2000) provided, in pertinent part: "If after hearing all relevant evidence, the court finds that the respondent has failed to show cause why the [temporary restraining order entered upon the filing of a petition for an order for protection pursuant to HRS § 586-3 (1993 &…”
Tortorello v. Tortorello, 145 P.3d 762 (Haw. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Upon application by a person or agency capable of petitioning under section 586-3, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the protective order should be extended.”
Hamilton Ex Rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 260 P.3d 1148 (Haw. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “HRS §§ 586-3; 586-4(c) (emphasis added). In 1998, the Legislature abolished the requirement that the petitioner allege recent acts of abuse in order to obtain an ex parte TRO.”
Beale v. Roos, 511 P.3d 825 (Haw. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “] (emphasis added); see also HRS § 586-3(a) (2018) ("There shall exist an action known as a petition for an order for protection in cases of domestic abuse.”
Naki (D. Haw. 2026).
· cites it 2× “Although a VOP is in fact a misdemeanor under Hawai‘i law, see Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 586-11(a), Plaintiffs’ argument fails to account for the fact that this crime involves allegations of domestic violence, see HRS §§ 586-3(a) (“There shall exist an action known as a…”
Kl v. Dl, 524 P.3d 1270 (Haw. App. 2023).
“" Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-3 (2006) provides, in relevant part: Order for protection.”
K.T. v. K.H., 153 Haw. 417 (Haw. App. 2023).
“Background Mother filed a Petition for an Order for Protection (mother's petition), pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-3 (2018), against Respondent-Appellee K.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 586-3(a) — 3 cases
Kie v. McMahel, 984 P.2d 1264 (Haw. App. 1999).
“1997) is one for "a petition for an order of protection,” HRS § 586-3(a) (1993), the petition was entitled, "Ex parte Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order for Protection and Statement.”
Beale v. Roos, 511 P.3d 825 (Haw. App. 2022).
“] (emphasis added); see also HRS § 586-3(a) (2018) ("There shall exist an action known as a petition for an order for protection in cases of domestic abuse.”
Naki (D. Haw. 2026).
“Although a VOP is in fact a misdemeanor under Hawai‘i law, see Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 586-11(a), Plaintiffs’ argument fails to account for the fact that this crime involves allegations of domestic violence, see HRS §§ 586-3(a) (“There shall exist an action known as a…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 586-3(c) — 1 case
Hamilton Ex Rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 260 P.3d 1148 (Haw. App. 2011).
“HRS §§ 586-3; 586-4(c) (emphasis added). In 1998, the Legislature abolished the requirement that the petitioner allege recent acts of abuse in order to obtain an ex parte TRO.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 586-3(e) — 1 case
Hamilton Ex Rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 260 P.3d 1148 (Haw. App. 2011).
“HRS §§ 586-3; 586-4(c) (emphasis added). In 1998, the Legislature abolished the requirement that the petitioner allege recent acts of abuse in order to obtain an ex parte TRO.”
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.