§586-5.5 Protective order; additional orders. (a) If, after hearing all relevant evidence, the court finds that the respondent has failed to show cause why the order should not be continued and that a protective order is necessary to prevent domestic abuse or a recurrence of abuse, the court may order that a protective order be issued for a further fixed reasonable period as the court deems appropriate.
The protective order may include all orders stated in the temporary restraining order and may provide for further relief as the court deems necessary to prevent domestic abuse or a recurrence of abuse, including orders establishing temporary visitation and custody with regard to minor children of the parties and orders to either or both parties to participate in domestic violence intervention services. If the court finds that the party meets the requirements under section 334-59(a)(2), the court further may order that the party be taken to the nearest facility for emergency examination and treatment.
(b) A protective order may be extended for such further fixed reasonable period as the court deems appropriate. 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. In making a determination, the court shall consider evidence of abuse and threats of abuse that occurred prior to the initial restraining order and whether good cause exists to extend the protective order.
The extended protective order may include all orders stated in the preceding restraining order and may provide such further relief as the court deems necessary to prevent domestic abuse or a recurrence of abuse, including orders establishing temporary visitation and custody with regard to minor children of the parties and orders to either or both parties to participate in domestic violence intervention services. The court may terminate the extended protective order at any time with the mutual consent of the parties. [L 1987, c 315, §4; am L 1991, c 235, §2; am L 1996, c 199, §1; am L 1998, c 172, §4; am L 2001, c 295, §1]
Rules of Court
Restraining orders, see HFCR rule 65.
Hawaii violation for breach of a protective order is not similar to contempt of court for sentencing purposes. 631 F.3d 1021 (2011).
A chapter 586 protective order does not unconstitutionally curtail a person's freedom of movement. 85 H. 197 (App.), 940 P.2d 404 (1997).
Application of preponderance of the evidence standard as appropriate judicial basis for issuance of protective order under this section does not violate due process rights. 85 H. 197 (App.), 940 P.2d 404 (1997).
No equal protection violation for use of preponderance of evidence standard of proof for this section as family and household members not suspect class and rational basis underlying this standard adopted by legislature under chapter 571 for this chapter was to facilitate and expedite judicial issuance of protective orders. 85 H. 197 (App.), 940 P.2d 404 (1997).
The order to a respondent to show cause under subsection (a) is a direction from the court to appear at a hearing to answer and to respond to the petition's allegations, rather than a mandate which places the burden on the respondent of initially going forward with evidence to prove the negative of the allegations. 91 H. 438 (App.), 984 P.2d 1264 (1999).
Unless expressly permitted by the court, §134-7(f) unqualifiedly prohibits a person subject to an order under this chapter from possession and control of a firearm during the pendency of that order; this prohibition is effective irrespective of whether the respondent owned the firearms involved. 91 H. 438 (App.), 984 P.2d 1264 (1999).
Where defendant testified at defendant's criminal trial that complainant was defendant's niece and that they had formerly resided together at the home of defendant's father, this testimony established that defendant and complainant met the definition of "family or household member" under §586-1; thus, family court had jurisdiction to issue the protection order under this section and the protection order was valid. 112 H. 136 (App.), 144 P.3d 584 (2006).