Bill Text: HI SCR128 | 2018 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Requesting The Judiciary To Convene A Working Group To Develop And Implement A Plan For Improving The Family Court Restraining Order Petition Process, Law Enforcement's Response To Violations Of Restraining Orders, And The Judicial Response To Alleged Violations Of Restraining Orders.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 11-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2018-03-15 - Referred to JDC, WAM. [SCR128 Detail]
Download: Hawaii-2018-SCR128-Introduced.html
|
THE SENATE |
S.C.R. NO. |
128 |
|
TWENTY-NINTH LEGISLATURE, 2018 |
|
|
|
STATE OF HAWAII |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION
Requesting the judiciary to convene a working group to develop aND IMPLEMENT A plan for improving the family court restraining order petition process, law enforcement's response to violations OF RESTRAINING ORDERS, AND THE JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF RESTRAINING ORDERS.
WHEREAS, the State of Hawaii has enacted a number of laws aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence; and
WHEREAS, the Judiciary, county police departments, and county prosecutors' offices each have systems in place to address the personal safety of victims of domestic violence; and
WHEREAS, often the only recourse for victims of domestic violence who fear for the safety of themselves and their children is to initiate a civil legal action, known as a "petition for an order for protection" under section 586-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to seek an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) that is valid for up to one hundred eighty days, at the family court's discretion, or in cases where an ex parte temporary restraining order is already in effect, a "protective order" that is valid for "a further fixed reasonable period of time", as determined by the family court; and
WHEREAS, even when victims of domestic violence are aware of their rights under the law and take the appropriate steps to petition the court for a temporary restraining order or pursue a longer term protective order, the judicial process is often full of delays and redundancies that disproportionately harm victims; typical examples include cases in which:
(1) A victim petitions the family court for an ex parte temporary restraining order; the family court grants the temporary restraining order and schedules a hearing within fifteen days for the purpose of determining whether a protective order that is valid for a further fixed reasonable period of time is necessary to prevent domestic abuse or a recurrence of abuse; the victim arrives at court for the hearing, only to discover that the hearing must be postponed because the perpetrator was not served with notice of the hearing and is therefore not present for the hearing; and
(2) A victim is granted a temporary restraining order and the order and notice of hearing with respect to a protective order are served on the perpetrator; at the hearing, the perpetrator indicates that more time is needed to hire an attorney, and the court postpones the hearing for one month; at the next hearing, the perpetrator again requests more time to hire an attorney, and the court postpones the hearing for another month; by the time of the next hearing, roughly two and a half months have elapsed, the victim has gone to court at least four times, and yet, no progress has been made toward obtaining a court order that is designed to protect the victim for a longer period of time; and
WHEREAS, even when temporary restraining orders or protective orders are issued without undue delay, law enforcement agencies' response to violations of these orders is frequently insufficient, even bewildering, as in the case of victims with a valid order who, in compliance with the terms of the order, report a violation (or multiple violations) of the order to law enforcement authorities, but are told that no enforcement action will be taken, which leaves victims vulnerable and exposed to continued acts of violence; and
WHEREAS, for years, victims of domestic violence, victim advocates, and other concerned stakeholders have informed the Judiciary, county police departments, and county prosecutors' offices that the present system is extremely cumbersome and slow, and often fails to adequately penalize perpetrators of domestic violence who commit further temporary restraining order or protective order violations; and
WHEREAS, it is clear that victims of domestic violence encounter obstacles at every stage of the process of seeking and enforcing a temporary restraining order or longer term protective order, hereinafter referred to as the "restraining order petition and enforcement processes", including:
(1) Inadequate information on or assistance with the mechanics of filing a petition for an ex parte temporary restraining order;
(2) Delays in the scheduling of court hearings due to bad faith by perpetrators of domestic violence seeking to prolong the petition process or make it more difficult;
(3) Lack of cooperation by law enforcement authorities when asked to enforce a valid temporary restraining order or protective order after a violation has occurred; and
(4) Long delays in scheduling a case for trial after a temporary restraining order or protective order violation has been investigated by law enforcement authorities and a criminal prosecution for violation of the order has commenced; and
WHEREAS, even when well-meaning public servants do their best to assist victims of domestic violence, systemic problems often result in victims becoming disenchanted with the restraining order petition and enforcement processes and losing faith in the overall ability of the legal system to protect them; and
WHEREAS, a June 2016 report titled "Mapping a Pathway to Safety: A Community Safety Assessment of the City and County of Honolulu Protective Order Process" examined each stage of the restraining order petition process, identified strengths and weaknesses at each stage, and provided detailed recommendations for improving the process using a more victim-centered approach; and
WHEREAS, although the report's findings and recommendations focused on the characteristics of the process encountered by victims of domestic violence in the City and County of Honolulu, it is well known that similar problems exist within the other counties of the State; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of public safety and the overall health of the State that action be taken to improve the family court restraining order petition process, law enforcement's response to violations of restraining orders, and the judicial response to alleged violations of restraining orders; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, the House of Representatives concurring, that the Judiciary is requested to convene a working group to develop and implement a plan for improving the family court restraining order petition process, law enforcement's response to violations of restraining orders, and the judicial response to alleged violations of restraining orders; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the working group is requested to comprise members that represent the various perspectives of public officials and other stakeholders with significant involvement in the restraining order petition and enforcement processes, and include:
(1) The Chief Justice or the Chief Justice's designee, who shall serve as the chairperson of the working group;
(2) A judge from the family court division of each circuit court, to be appointed by the Chief Justice;
(3) A representative of the Department of the Attorney General;
(4) A representative of each county police department;
(5) A member of each house of the Legislature, to be designated by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, respectively;
(6) A representative from the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence or other similar victim advocacy organization selected by the Chief Justice; and
(7) A representative from a domestic violence advocacy organization from each county selected by the Chief Justice; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that no member be made subject to chapter 84, Hawaii Revised Statutes, solely because of the member's participation in the working group; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Judiciary is requested to provide administrative support to the working group; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the working group is requested to consider the recommendations made in the June 2016 report referenced above, as well as any other appropriate materials; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the working group is requested to submit a report of its findings and recommendations, including any proposed legislation, to the Legislature no later than twenty days prior to the convening of the Regular Session of 2019; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the Chief Justice, the Senior Family Court Judge of each circuit, the Attorney General, the respective Police Chiefs of the City and County of Honolulu and the counties of Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
|
|
OFFERED BY: |
_____________________________ |
|
|
|
|
Family Court; Temporary Restraining Orders; Protective Orders; Working Group; Plan for Improving Petition Process, Law Enforcement's Response to Violations, and Judicial Response to Alleged Violations
