Hawaiʻi’s Custody Laws

Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 571-46
Criteria and procedure in awarding custody and visitation; best interest of the child;

&
HRS § 571-46.1
Joint Custody

Hawaiʻi’s custody laws were amended in 2005 adding the “frequent, meaningful, and continuing contact” language to HRS § 571-46, for determining custody; and in the joint custody statute § 571-46.1, which established a preference for joint custody.

With the application of parental alienation junk-science, reports of domestic violence or child abuse are ignored and a protective mom is either forced into joint custody or loses it completely. A majority of local organizations and citizens opposed the bill (SB 556 of 2005), but the legislature did not pay attention.

In 2005, the CRC, without raising red flags, subversively lobbied Hawaiʻi lawmakers to amend state custody laws, to prevent divorce at all costs in order to preserve their ultra-conservative religious-based ideals of a “traditional family.”

The CRC tactfully designed facially neutral language that, as applied, would interact to ensure father-controlled statutory custodial power, triggered when mothers report family violence or intrafamilial child sexual abuse. The result is the complete removal of a non-offending parent’s custody, usually the mother, and often the subsequent order for her to pay child support to the perpetrator of abuse.

The presumption of protective mother’s guilt, due to beliefs in parental alienation junk science, precludes her ability to submit admissible evidence and witness testimony proving abuse directly to the trial record. This bars sufficient appellate review and is a violation of due process.

This routine and unethical procedure is directly caused by court appointments of quasi-judicial professionals (custody evaluators or child protective services), who do not hold sufficient licensing to identify or handle admissible evidence, and who are not statutorily required to submit all relevant evidence with their summarized court reports. Hawaii also has no regulation of custody evaluators or GALs if misconduct occurs.

The CRC succeeded in manipulating parental alienation into local custody laws through the facially neutral language of “frequent, meaningful, and continuing contact.” Coupled with the “rebuttable presumption” exception for domestic violence cases, parental alienation effectively preempts and dismisses report of abuse committed by abusive fathers, without due process afforded to the protective mother.

By the late 2000s, the CRC succeeded in changing custody laws in more than half of the states in the nation, as well as in several countries internationally, under the guise of promoting the “best interests of the child” as a children’s rights nonprofit organization.