2009 Hawaii Code
Volume 12
TITLE 31 - FAMILY
CHAPTER 587 - CHILD PROTECTIVE ACT
§587-11 - Jurisdiction.

PART II.  JURISDICTION

 

     §587-11  Jurisdiction.  Pursuant to [section] 571-11(9), the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in a child protective proceeding concerning any child who was or is found within the State at the time the facts and circumstances occurred, are discovered, or are reported to the department, which facts and circumstances constitute the basis for the finding that the child is a child whose physical or psychological health or welfare is subject to imminent harm, has been harmed, or is subject to threatened harm by the acts or omissions of the child's family. [L 1983, c 171, pt of §1; am L 1986, c 316, §3; am L 1992, c 190, §7]

 

Case Notes

 

  Cited, where plaintiffs sought reimbursement of legal fees expended during proceedings initiated pursuant to the Hawaii Child Protective Act, prior to the initiation of any Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.) proceedings and argued that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear their claim for attorneys' fees under 20 U.S.C. §1415(i)(3)(B);  plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  374 F. Supp. 2d 886.

  In the context of Child Protective Act proceedings involving parents neither resident nor domiciled in Hawaii, personal jurisdiction may not be exercised over a parent pursuant to this section to terminate their parental rights unless due process requirements are satisfied.  83 H. 367, 926 P.2d 1290.

  As claim that health department was legally obligated to pay for child's services at private residential treatment center arose under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and child did not pursue the remedies available under the federal act to establish health department's obligation to pay for the services, family court lacked jurisdiction to order the department to pay for the services.  96 H. 272, 30 P.3d 878.

  The harm to the children and threatened harm to them within the State, along with father's related in-state conduct, were sufficient to support subject matter jurisdiction and the resulting order granting foster custody to the State.  99 H. 522, 57 P.3d 447.