Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-46

Section 571-46(1) gives neither parent a preference in a custody award and makes the child’s best interests the deciding consideration.

Turoff v. Turoff · filed 1974-10-25(1)

We are of the opinion that under the relevant statute, HRS § 571-46(1), each parent has an equal right to an award of custody of the minor child. That is, the law in this jurisdiction takes a neutral stance and thus, neither parent has any preferred status to an award of custody. Generally, the critical question to be resolved is whether or not the “best interest of the child” has been served when a parent is awarded the custody of the child.

Section 571-46(1) makes the child’s best interests the criterion for awarding custody to either or both parents.

Tetreault v. Tetreault · filed 2002-09-13(1)

The criteria for awarding the custody of a minor child "to either parent or both parents” is, as stated in HRS § 571 46(1) (2001), "the best interests of the child.”

Section 571-46 makes the child’s best interests the controlling issue in a custody determination.

Fisher v. Fisher · filed 2006-06-30(1)

Under HRS § 571-46, the sole issue in a custody determination is the child’s best interests, which is an issue of ultimate fact.

Section 571-46(b) permits the family court to consider factors beyond its listed custody factors, including a parent’s objections to a proposed school’s religious curriculum and admissions policy.

Hollaway v. Hollaway · filed 2014-04-30(b)

Although not specifically enumerated in the list at HRS § 571-A6(b), Father’s objection to the proposed school’s religious curriculum and preferential admissions policies is a consideration that would be consistent with those articulated in HRS § 571-46(b), and thus should have been weighed by the Family Court alongside the quality of education offered by the school, etc.

Section 571-46(b) requires the family court to consider several factors when determining a child’s best interests; no single factor is dispositive.

PO v. JS · filed 2016-06-15(b)

By statute, the family court considers several factors in determining the best interests of the child. See HRS § 571-46(b) (Supp.2015). ... No one factor is dispositive of a family court’s best interests of the child determination.

Section 571-46(b)’s best interests factors include a child’s hānai relationships, which family courts must consider.

In re AB. · filed 2019-12-13(b)

HRS § 571-46(b) sets forth the factors involved in a best interests of the child analysis in the context of child custody and visitation determinations in divorce proceedings. ... Hānai relationships fit within these categories that the family court must consider in determining a child’s best interests.

Section 571-46(a)(1) makes the child’s best interests the standard for awarding custody.

DL v. CL. · filed 2020-04-17(a)(1)

The “best interests” standard governs child custody decisions. See HRS § 571-46(a)(1) (“Custody should be awarded . . . according to the best interest of the child . . . .”).

Section 571-46(b)(13) requires a court assessing a child's best interests to consider evidence of a prospective adoptive parent's past drug abuse.

In re H.A. · filed 2017-04-28(b)(13)

Under HRS § 571-46(b) (13), however, the Family Court was required to consider any evidence of past drug abuse by Grandmother. The Family Court found that this factor weighed against her because of her federal drug conviction. As substantial evidence supports this finding, the Family Court did not clearly err.

Section 571-46(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for courts to consider when deciding a child's best interests in a custody or relocation dispute.

JR v. IR · filed 2021-06-08(b)

HRS § 571-46(b) (Supp. 2017) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for the family court to consider in determining the best interest of the child.

Section 571-46(b) does not require the family court to expressly discuss every listed factor in a custody decision.

JW v. LW · filed 2021-10-28(b)

First, the Family Court is not required to expressly discuss each of the HRS § 571-46(b) factors in custody decisions.

Section 571-46(b) requires the family court to consider sixteen factors when deciding a child's best interests, with no single factor given presumptive weight.

MS v. PP · filed 2022-12-01(b)

When determining what constitutes "the best interest of the child" the family court must consider the sixteen factors set forth in HRS § 571- 46(b). No single factor is given presumptive weight.

Section 571-46(b) requires the court to consider the listed factors when determining a child's best interests in a custody ruling.

J.S. v. K.R. · filed 2024-06-17(b)

On this record, we conclude that the family court sufficiently considered the factors set forth in HRS § 571-46, including the best interests of the Children, in its custody ruling.

Section 571-46(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for determining a child's best interests in a custody decision.

C.Y. v. R.H. · filed 2025-04-11(b)

HRS § 571-46(b) (2018) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for the family court to consider in determining the best interests of the child.

Section 571-46 does not provide the governing best interests standard in a termination of parental rights hearing under section 587A-33(a)(3).

In re: IK, JK, SK, RK, and KK · filed 2021-09-27

Thus, while we address Mother's arguments, we decline to accept HRS § 571-46 as providing the governing standard.

Section 571-46(a)(1) bases sole or joint custody on the child's best interests; a parent need not be found unfit before the court denies joint custody.

SA v. AE · filed 2023-04-10(a)(1)

Sole or joint custody is based on the child's best interest and a lack of finding of parental unfitness does not entitle a parent to joint custody.

Section 571-46(b) requires custody decisions to address relevant factors affecting the child's best interest, including safety and a parent's alcohol abuse.

H.A. v. S.A. · filed 2025-10-17(b)

The Family Court did not make findings about Child's best interest to address the HRS § 571-46(b)(2), (7), (8), (12), and (13) issues raised by Shintani.

Section 571-46(a)(3) requires a court to consider and give due weight to the custody wishes of a child capable of forming an intelligent preference.

W.G. v. D.S. · filed 2025-11-25(a)(3)

The Family Court determined it was in the Child's best interest that Father be awarded temporary sole physical and legal custody without referring to or analyzing any of the "best interests of the child" factors and considerations set forth in HRS § 571-46(a). Moreover, the Custody Order failed to address HRS § 571-46(a)(3), which states that "[i]f a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason, so as to form an intelligent preference, the child's wishes as to custody shall be considered and be given due weight by the court." Here, the Child was over fifteen years old at the time of the February 13, 2025 Custody Order, yet the order does not address Mother's claim that the Child did not consent to reunification therapy with Father.

Section 571-46(b)'s best interests factors can support an award of sole legal custody when the family court's findings support it.

HM v. BM · filed 2021-01-19(b)

In addition to HRS § 571-46(b)(11), the unchallenged findings also support an award of sole legal custody to Father under these other HRS § 571-46(b) factors: ... Mother has not pointed to any evidence in the record showing that any of the HRS § 571-46(b) factors should have caused the family court to award her sole legal custody of Child, or to not award sole legal custody to Father.

Section 571-46(b) does not require a family court to match every finding and conclusion to a specific custody factor when its reasoning can be tracked.

KP v. EM. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Ginoza, J., in which McKenna, J., Joins. ICA s.d.o., filed 03/28/2024 [ad · filed 2025-09-15(b)

Because we review the family court’s custody order for abuse of discretion, as long as we can track its decision-making, we do not require a family court to take a hyper-technical or artificial approach and match each FOF and COL with a HRS § 571-46(b) factor.

Section 571-46(6) allows a custody change when the child’s best interests require or justify it; occasional visitation difficulties did not justify a change where the children were thriving in their current home.

Fujikane v. Fujikane · filed 1979-12-17(6)

The children were happy, well cared for, and well adjusted to their environment on Maui. Any change in custody therefore would not have been in their best interests.

Section 571-46(6) permits modification of a valid custody award to a person other than a parent when the child’s best interests require or justify it; after such an award, the parent’s custody priority no longer controls.

Department of Social Services & Housing v. Doe · filed 1991-11-14(6)

When there is a valid court order awarding the custody of the child to a person other than the child’s father and/or mother, HRS § 571-46(6) (Supp. 1990) applies. It provides in relevant part as follows: “Any custody award shall be subject to modification or change whenever the best interests of the child require or justify the modification or change[.]” Consequently, Father’s right to custody priority in the absence of a valid finding that he is not a fit and proper person or has a home that is not stable and wholesome was extinguished by the January 11, 1990 Stipulated Custody Order awarding joint legal custody of Son to Father and Maternal Grandfather and sole physical custody to Maternal Grandfather. Thereafter, the sole consideration was the best interests of Son.

Section 571-46(a)(6) allows custody to be modified when the child’s best interests require or justify it, without a threshold showing of a material change in circumstances.

Waldecker v. O'Scanlon. · filed 2016-06-17(a)(6)

Notably, HRS § 571-46(a)(6), which specifically addresses modification of custody, does not require a material change in circumstance--stating instead that “[a]ny custody award shall be subject to modification or change whenever the best interests of the child require or justify the modification or change.”

Section 571-46(6) places the burden on the party seeking to modify custody to show that the child's best interests require or justify the change.

Doe v. Doe · filed 2009-02-27(6)

Indeed, it appears that, as the party seeking to modify or change custody in this case, Father had the burden to show that "the best interests of the child require or justify the modification.” HRS § 571-46(6).

Section 571-46 permits a family court, when the facts warrant, to order that a parent's sole custody automatically transfer to the other parent before a planned move outside the court's jurisdiction.

Maeda v. Maeda · filed 1990-07-03

We hold, sua sponte, that HRS § 571^46 gives the family court the power, where warranted by the facts, to award sole legal and physical custody of a child to his mother subject to the condition subsequent that the award of his custody to his mother will be automatically terminated and awarded to his father one week prior to the timé when his mother effectuates her plans to move with the child to a new residence out of the family court’s jurisdiction.

Section 571-46 creates no presumption favoring a parent who remains in Hawaii when the other parent relocates; custody turns on the child’s best interests.

Inoue v. Inoue · filed 2008-01-31

Gina is, therefore, correct that there is no presumption of an award of custody to a parent who remains in Hawaii rather than one who leaves Hawaii.

Section 571-46(a)(6) allows a court to modify custody when the child's best interests require or justify a change.

TF v. RD · filed 2022-05-09(a)(6)

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-46 (2018) empowers the court to modify or change a custody award "whenever the best interests of the child require or justify the modification or change . . . ." HRS § 571-46(a)(6) (2018). ... This conclusion was supported by the record and properly based on the statutory "best interest of the child" factors.

Section 571-46(a)(6) permits modification of a custody award when the child's best interests require or justify it; ending supervised visitation is such a modification.

J.D. v. D.D. · filed 2024-03-27(a)(6)

Mother's request for discontinuation of supervision of her visitation was a request for a modification of the custody award. Hawaii Revised Statutes ... (HRS) § 571-46(a)(6) (2018) provides that "[a]ny custody award shall be subject to modification or change whenever the best interests of the child require or justify the modification or change[.]" ... Mother argues variously that the Family Court erred and abused its discretion in continuing supervised visitation, but makes no cogent argument that it was in the best interest of the Children to modify the custody award set forth in the Divorce Decree.

Section 571-46(a)(6) permits modification of a custody award when a change in circumstances makes modification serve the child's best interests.

W.C. v. T.C. · filed 2026-03-05(a)(6)

Under HRS § 571-46, "there is a single inquiry which focuses on the best interests of the child[,]" which is "whether or not there has been such a change of circumstances that the modification will be for the best interest of the child." ... Here, the record reflects, and the Family Court found, that the arguments asserted in Mother's latest motion regarding a change in circumstances were previously raised by Mother in her prior motions, and were already considered in the family court's prior March 17, 2025 custody order. ... We conclude the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's April 14, 2025 Motion for Post-Decree Relief.

Section 571-46(2) permits custody for a fit person who has provided a stable home only when the award serves the child’s best interests, subject to priority for the child’s parents and family.

In the Interest of Doe · filed 1989-12-18(2)

Thus, when HRS § 571-46(2) authorizes the award of custody to “[a]ny person who has had de facto custody of the child in a stable and wholesome home and is a fit and proper person” it does so only “whenever such award serves the best interest of the child”, subject to the statutory priority in favor of the child’s parents and family.

Section 571-46(a)(2) defines de facto custody as sole or shared physical custody combined with the assumption of legal custody duties.

Newcomb v. McPeek. · filed 2016-11-01(a)(2)

Although “de facto custody” is not defined, we interpret it to mean sole or shared physical custody in combination with an assumption of incidents of legal custody enumerated in HRS § 571-2, which include “the duty to protect, ... train, and discipline the minor and to provide the minor with food, shelter, education, and ordinary medical care.”

Section 571-46(a)(2) requires courts to consider relevant evidence of a person’s present fitness when deciding whether the person qualifies for a de facto custody presumption.

W.N. v. S.M.. · filed 2018-07-30(a)(2)

The plain language of HRS § 571-46(a)(2) requires the ... court to consider relevant, probative evidence of the person’s present fitness for custody.

De facto custody requires sole or shared physical custody together with an assumption of parental duties such as providing care, shelter, education, and ordinary medical care.

A.A. v. B.B.. · filed 2016-11-03(a)(2)

Although “de facto custody” is not defined, we interpret it to mean sole or shared physical custody in combination with an assumption of incidents of legal custody enumerated in HRS § 571-2, which include “the duty to protect, train, and discipline the minor and to provide the minor with food, shelter, education, and ordinary medical care.”

Section 571-46(1) gives parents a preference that the family court must consider when deciding whether ending a non-parent’s guardianship serves the child’s best interest.

In Re the Guardianship of Doe · filed 2000-05-19(1)

We hold that in a proceeding brought by a parent to remove a non-parent as a guardian of the parent’s minor child, the family court must consider the preference granted to parents in Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-46(1) (1993) in determining whether under HRS § 560:5-212 (1993), it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the guardianship.

Section 571-46 gives a parent custody priority over grandparents unless the parent is found unfit.

Hayes v. Hayes · filed 2009-06-23

The family court correctly concluded that as between Father and Maternal Grandparents, HRS § 571-46 accords custody priority to Father, absent a valid finding that Father is an unfit parent.

A nonparent seeking custody under § 571-46(a)(2) must show de facto custody in a stable and wholesome home, fitness to care for the child, and that the award serves the child's best interests.

E.A. v. N.B. · filed 2025-12-19(a)(2)

Since N.B. was not Child's father, he would only be entitled to custody if he proved he protected, trained, and disciplined Child, provided Child with food, shelter, education, and ordinary medical care in a stable and wholesome home, that he was a fit and proper person, and that being in his custody served Child's best interests.

A court deciding a de facto custody claim must make findings and conclusions on whether the claimant satisfies the statutory test.

In re: The Guardianship of LN and BN · filed 2022-12-05(a)(2)

The Family Court should have, at a minimum, made findings and conclusions with regard to whether Guardian satisfied the de facto custody test of HRS § 571-46(a)(2).

Section 571-46’s best-interest factors must be weighed with a presumption favoring a fit parent, accounting for advantages the guardianship itself created.

In re: Guardianship of I.W · filed 2026-06-16(b)

The presumption carries real weight. It’s not just a conceptual checkbox on the way to HRS § 571-46’s analysis. When a family court considers a factor that favors the guardian, the presumption requires asking whether that surface-level advantage reflects the parent’s true ability to parent rather than the conditions the guardianship itself created.

Section 571-46(9) does not treat parental physical discipline permitted by section 703-309(1) as family violence.

Rezentes v. Rezentes · filed 1998-08-12(9)

In light of HRS §§ 703-309(1) and 577-7(a), we conclude that the term “family violence” in HRS § 571-46(9) (1993) would not extend to the type of physical discipline of a child by his or her parent that is expressly permitted in HRS § 703-309(1).

Section 571-46(9) creates a rebuttable presumption against placing a child in the custody of a parent found to have committed family violence.

Doe v. Doe · filed 2002-04-18(9)

A determination of family violence bears directly upon the best interests of the child, as indicated in HRS § 571-46(9), which provides that, when a determination of family violence is made by the family court, a rebut-table presumption is created that custody should not be placed with the perpetrator: In every proceeding where there is at issue a dispute as to the custody of a child, a determination by the court that family violence has been committed by a parent raises a rebuttable presumption that it is detrimental to the child and not in the best interest of the child to be placed in sole custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody with the perpetrator of family violence.

Section 571-46(a)(9)'s rebuttable presumption against a parent's custody applies only when the court determines that the parent committed family violence.

NB v. GT · filed 2020-07-31(a)(9)

We disagree because the record does not contain a finding that Father committed family violence, and thus there was no rebuttable presumption against Father's joint physical custody of the children.

Section 571-46(a)(9) creates a rebuttable presumption against custody following a finding of domestic abuse, requiring the affected parent to show that custody would not harm the child’s best interests.

AC v. AC. · filed 2014-11-28(a)(9)

Given the presumption created by HRS § 571-46(a)(9), that custody should not go to Mother, Mother had to demonstrate she posed no threat to Son and Daughter, and that placing them in her care and custody would not be detrimental to their best interests.

Section 571-46(a)(9) requires a court deciding custody to address whether a parent committed family violence, including alleged violence before an earlier custody decree.

Tumaneng v. Tumaneng. · filed 2016-10-21(a)(9)

HRS § 571-46(9) requires that the family court address whether “family violence has been committed by a parent” in “every proceeding” at which a court considers a “dispute as to ... the custody of a child.”

Section 571-46 permits a court modifying custody to consider evidence of family violence that was not litigated in the initial divorce case; claim preclusion does not bar that evidence.

D.F. v. T.F. · filed 2024-09-27

Under these circumstances, the family court properly considered evidence of violence in determining the best interests of the children pursuant to HRS § 571-46, and claim preclusion did not bar the consideration of such evidence.

The custody presumption in § 571-46(a)(9) requires a specific finding of family violence; an order for protection alone does not trigger it.

J.W. v. R.E. · filed 2025-05-14(a)(9)

Without a specific finding that Mother engaged in "family violence," the family court erred in concluding the HRS § 571-46(a)(9) presumption applied solely based on the entry of the Order of Protection.

Section 571-46(b)(16) requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent willfully misused the protection from abuse process to gain a custody advantage and that the misuse indicates an inability to cooperate with the other parent in the future.

LO v. NO. · filed 2020-11-05(b)(16)

This evidence fails to “clear[ly] and convincing[ly]” show (1) a willful misuse of the TRO process or (2) that the misuse gave Husband any tactical advantage in the custody dispute. Further, there was no evidence regarding the TRO that showed Husband could not cooperate with Wife in the future.

Section 571-46(7), together with section 580-47(a), authorizes the family court to require a custodial parent to pay all or part of the reasonable costs of court-ordered visitation.

Dring v. Dring · filed 1998-04-30(7)

HRS § 571-46(7) (1993) states in relevant part that “[rjeasonable visitation rights shall be awarded to parents, grandparents, and any person interested in the welfare of the child in the discretion of the eourt[J” HRS § 580-47(a) (1993) states in relevant part that “the court may make any further orders as shall appear just and equitable (1) compelling the parties or either of them to provide for the support, maintenance, and education of the children of the parties[.]” We conclude that these two statutes implicitly authorize the family court to enter orders requiring the custodial parent to pay for all or a part of the reasonable costs of implementing the family court’s order re visitation.

Section 571-46(7) leaves grandparent visitation to the court’s discretion, bars it upon a showing of detriment to the child’s best interests, and permits consideration of its effect on a noncustodial parent’s visitation time.

Camerlingo v. Camerlingo · filed 1998-07-20(7)

We hold that Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-46(7) (1993) does not mandate a court, upon a grandparent’s request, to award the grandparent rights of visitation with his or her grandchild. Instead, HRS § 571-46(7) generally leaves the issue of “[r]easonable visitation rights” of grandparents to “the discretion of the court,” while precluding the award of such rights if “it is shown that rights of visitation are detrimental to the best interests of the ehild[.]” Further, we hold that, in determining whether to award visitation rights to a grandparent pursuant to HRS § 571-46(7), a court may properly consider the effect of such an award on the visitation time of the non-eustodial parent.

Section 571-46(7) gives the family court discretion to deny grandparents' request for extensive visitation based on factors beyond whether visitation would harm the child's best interests.

Gf v. Sc · filed 2008-01-18(7)

Here, the family court expressed its concern that the visitation rights of the parents had not yet been determined _and that the addition of "more parties" would only complicate the situation. Appellants have not challenged this finding by the family court. Rather, they argue that such a basis is insufficient. Upon a review of this record however, we cannot say Appellants have carried their burden on appeal to show an abuse of discretion. Custody had been awarded to Father and Mother's rights to visitation had been reserved. In the time between the October 24, 2005 hearing when the family court reserved Mother's right to visitation and the June 22, 2006 hearing on her motion for change of custody, it appears that Mother and Father could not amicably resolve the issue of her visitation. The family court made clear that it was not ruling Appellants could not see Child, but was merely denying their motion. Given that Appellants' request was for "extensive" visitation, the family court's decision not to rule on the request at that juncture was within its discretion.

Section 571-46(7) permits a family court to award reasonable parental visitation unless it is shown to be detrimental to the child's best interests.

Rao v. Rao · filed 2009-12-11(7)

Under HRS § 571-46(7), family courts may award reasonable visitation rights to parents in the discretion of the court, unless it is shown the rights are detrimental to the best interests of the child. ... Thus, the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in granting supervised visitation to Ramlu.

Section 571-46(a)(7) requires reasonable visitation unless visitation is shown to be detrimental to the child's best interests; a finding about parental conflict alone does not justify sharply restricting visitation.

T.H. v. N.H. · filed 2024-01-26(a)(7)

This finding, however, does not explain how one therapy session or a two-hour dinner per week with Father for the rest of children's childhood (absent a court-ordered modification) is reasonable.

Section 571-46(4) permits the family court to consider out-of-court information in a custody report when counsel can challenge it and cross-examine those responsible for the report; otherwise inadmissible evidence may be used only to decide custody.

Sabol v. Sabol · filed 1981-03-12(4)

We think that HRS §§ 571-46, -45 and -41 (1976) and HFCR, rule 16, authorize a procedure similar to that authorized by the Hawaii Supreme Court in waiver cases in In Re Dinson, supra. We hold that the family court, in deciding custody disputes, may resort to a wide range of out-of-court information in reaching its decision subject to the requirements that what is so considered be made available to all involved counsel for challenge, impeachment, criticism or refutation and that the person or persons responsible for the report be made available for cross-examination as to any matter involved in the report. We further hold that upon proper objection, the otherwise inadmissible evidence should be admitted only for use in deciding the custody issue and not for deciding any other issue.

Section 571-46(a)(4) allows a family court to order and consider a custody evaluation investigation and report without a parent’s consent.

DJ v. CJ. · filed 2020-04-13(a)(4)

As can be seen, HRS § 571-46(a)(4) does not require consent to a custody evaluation investigation and report before one can be ordered and considered by the family court.

Section 571-46(8) leaves the appointment of a guardian ad litem to the court’s discretion.

Nihipali v. Apuakehau · filed 2006-06-07(8)

Maternal Grandparents contend that the family court erred in its decision not to appoint a guardian ad litem for Child as authorized by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-46(8) (Supp.2005). ... We conclude that the family court did not abuse its discretion.

Section 571-46(8) allows the family court to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent a child's interests at any time during a divorce proceeding.

Kennerly v. Kennerly · filed 2008-02-28(8)

Neither HRS § 571-46(8) nor HFCR Rule 17(c) limits the family court's ability to appoint a GAL to represent a child's interests at any time during a divorce proceeding.

A custody evaluator's report may be received in evidence if the evaluator is available for cross-examination.

P.C. v. G.S. · filed 2026-06-12(a)(4)

The family court appointed her under HRS § 571-46(a)(4) (2018). Under the statute, her report could be received in evidence if she was available for cross-examination. She was extensively cross- examined by Mother's counsel. The family court did not err by admitting the custody evaluator's report and testimony.

Section 571-46(a)(4) gives the family court discretion to order a custody investigation and report when good cause appears.

RQ v. KQ · filed 2023-03-15(a)(4)

HRS § 571-46(a)(4) (2018) provides in part that "[w]henever good cause appears therefor, the court may require an investigation and report concerning the care, welfare, and custody of any minor child of the parties." (Emphasis added.) ... Father thus fails to demonstrate that the Family Court erred by not ordering a custody investigation.

Section 571-46(6) allows custody awards to be modified when the child’s best interests require it, but does not supply custody jurisdiction after enactment of the Hawaii Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.

Bullard v. Bullard · filed 1982-06-22(6)

We also disagree with mother’s response that jurisdiction is supplied by HRS § 571-46(6) (1976). ... If that statute ever supplied jurisdiction, that fact was changed by the 1973 enactment of the HUCCJA, which, until the enactment of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, exclusively governed Hawaii’s jurisdiction in custody cases.

Section 571-46 requires the family court to leave decisions about a child to the person awarded sole legal and physical custody, rather than issue further orders as though the court were the custodian.

Bencomo v. Bencomo · filed 2006-11-02

In a divorce case, when the family court awards one person “sole legal and sole physical custody of’ a child, the family court is not authorized to enter additional orders as if it was the legal and physical custodian of that child. On the contrary, it must allow that custodial person the decision-making authority exercisable by the person who has been awarded the sole legal and physical custody of that child.

Section 571-46(a) allows a family court to give one parent tie-breaking authority in a joint custody award when doing so serves the child's best interests.

KS v. RS. Consolidated With Case No. CAAP-20-0000489. · filed 2022-05-27(a)

HRS § 571-46(a), setting forth the best interests of the child criteria for custody determinations, does not have language that would preclude an award of joint custody with tie-breaking authority to one parent.

Section 571-46(1) does not apply when a court decides whether withdrawing a valid adoption consent is in the child’s best interests.

Matter of a Female Child by Doe · filed 1997-04-30(1)

On that issue, HRS §§ 571-46(1) and 587-1 do not apply.

Section 571-46(b)'s best interest factors may be applied when deciding whether an adoption serves a child's best interests.

In re: Adoption of A · filed 2021-12-28(b)

The Family Court's application of the HRS § 571-46(b) best interest factors to these adoption petitions was not wrong.

Section 571-46(b)’s custody and visitation factors may guide an adoption or permanent placement decision, but a court need not evaluate every factor after parental rights terminate.

In re: ASK. · filed 2022-12-27(b)

So in post-parental termination cases, there is no reason to require family courts to do what the court did here - evaluate each custody and visitation factor.

Section 571-46 governs child custody disputes and does not apply where a parent's rights have been terminated and the child has been adopted.

In re: JA · filed 2023-05-16(a)

In the circumstances of this case, where Father's parental rights have been terminated, HRS § 571-46 does not apply.