STAND. COM. REP. NO. 2443

                                   Honolulu, Hawaii
                                                     , 2000

                                   RE:  S.B. No. 2154
                                        S.D. 1




Honorable Norman Mizuguchi
President of the Senate
Twentieth State Legislature
Regular Session of 2000
State of Hawaii

Sir:

     Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred S.B. No.
2154 entitled: 

     "A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS,"

begs leave to report as follows:

     The purpose of this bill is to amend Chapter 586, Hawaii
Revised Statutes by:

     (1)  Amending the definition of "family or household member"
          to include persons in a dating relationship;

     (2)  Defining the term "dating relationship";

     (3)  Providing for extended protective orders for ten year
          periods;

     (4)  Eliminating the distinction between "domestic" and
          "non-domestic" violations in chapter 586;

     (5)  Making the penalties for a violation of a protective
          order consistent with those for a violation of a
          temporary restraining order; and

     (6)  Requiring full faith and credit be given to foreign
          protective orders.

     Your Committee finds that domestic violence is one of the
most serious problems affecting our community, and that not all

 
a                                                     
                                   STAND. COM. REP. NO. 2443
                                   Page 2


of the victims can be classified as a family or household member.
Over the past few years, the issue of whether to include a
"dating relationship" within the definition of "family or
household member" has been hotly debated.  Although the Committee
recognizes the difficulty in defining "dating relationship" and
that inclusion of the term into the definition of "family or
household member" would significantly expand the jurisdictional
reach of the Family Court, your Committee believes that dating
couples should be afforded the same protections as other victims.
Your Committee further finds that changing the current definition
of "family or household member" to include persons in a dating
relationship will go a long way in identifying domestic violence
offenses and could assist in the prosecution of criminal charges
when necessary and appropriate.  Your Committee is aware of
concerns that by examining the length of time that has elapsed
after the termination of a relationship, the court will dismiss a
case because the definition of a dating relationship no longer
applies.  It is clearly not this Committee's intent to have a
case dismissed solely because a certain length of time has
elapsed between the termination of the relationship and the
alleged acts of violence.

     In addition, your Committee believes that extending
protective orders for ten years, prohibiting respondents from
contacting petitioners by telephonic means, and assuring full
faith and credit for foreign protective orders, will contribute
to the overall safety of domestic violence victims.

     Testimony in support of this measure was submitted by the
Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, the Department of
the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu, the
Honolulu Police Department; the Domestic Violence Clearinghouse
and Legal Hotline, the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic
Violence, Child and Family Services, and Hawaii Family Forum.
Testimony in opposition to this bill was submitted by the Office
of the Public Defender and a concerned individual.  The Judiciary
expressed concerns with some provisions of the bill.

     Upon further consideration, your Committee has amended this
measure by:

     (1)  Adding that the court should also examine the manner in
          which a relationship was terminated when making a
          determination of whether a dating relationship existed;

     (2)  Deleting the provision extending imprisonment to thirty
          days for first convictions on violations of temporary
          restraining orders;


 
a                                                     
                                   STAND. COM. REP. NO. 2443
                                   Page 3


     (3)  Increasing the length of time an initial protective
          order may be issued, from three years to five years;

     (4)  Deleting the provision that made refusal by a
          respondent to accept personal service of an order a
          petty misdemeanor; and

     (5)  Making technical, non-substantive changes for the
          purposes of clarity and style.

     As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your
Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your
Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No.
2154, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second
Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 2154, S.D. 1, and
be placed on the calendar for Third Reading.

                                   Respectfully submitted on
                                   behalf of the members of the
                                   Committee on Judiciary,



                                   ______________________________
                                   AVERY B. CHUMBLEY, Co-Chair



                                   ______________________________
                                   MATTHEW M. MATSUNAGA, Co-Chair

 
a