§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; or
(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.
(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]
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).