HB264 amends Hawaii’s family court custody and visitation statute, section 571-46, to add an explicit prohibition on courts considering whether a parent affirms a child’s gender identity or expression when determining the child’s best interests. The bill states that parents have a constitutionally protected right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children, including children experiencing gender dysphoria, and frames the measure as a clarification of what may not be weighed in custody disputes.
The bill leaves the existing best-interest framework largely intact. Courts would still consider the same broad set of custody factors, including abuse, neglect, caregiving history, the child’s needs, family violence, mental health, substance abuse, and misuse of protection-from-abuse proceedings. HB264 adds a new subsection providing that a parent’s affirmation of a child’s gender identity or expression that does not align with sex assigned at birth cannot be used as a factor in custody or visitation decisions. The bill also defines “gender identity or expression” by reference to existing law and takes effect upon approval.
Impact
HB264 would directly amend Hawaii Revised Statutes section 571-46, which governs custody and visitation determinations in family court. Its practical effect is to remove gender-affirming parenting from the list of permissible considerations in best-interest analyses, limiting judicial reliance on a parent’s support for a child’s gender identity or expression when deciding custody, visitation, and related orders. The bill does not alter the broader custody standards, family violence protections, or other enumerated best-interest factors already in statute.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or voting pattern to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure is clearly framed as a parental-rights protection and appears designed to prevent adverse custody consequences for parents who affirm a child’s gender identity. The absence of recorded discussion means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the available legislative history.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely to be whether a parent’s affirmation of a child’s gender identity should ever be relevant to the child’s best interests in custody litigation. Supporters would view the bill as protecting parental rights and preventing discrimination against gender-affirming parents, while opponents may argue that courts should retain discretion to consider all aspects of a child’s welfare in individualized custody cases. The bill’s explicit exclusion of this factor, while preserving the rest of the best-interest test, is the key policy choice that would draw the most scrutiny.
Property: recording; marketable record title act; revise. Amends title & secs. 1, 1a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8 of 1945 PA 200 (MCL 565.101 et seq.) & adds sec. 5a.