SB1520 amends Hawaii family law to limit court-ordered mediation in cases involving domestic abuse. The bill adds a new provision for contested paternity proceedings and revises the existing divorce/custody mediation statute so that a party alleging domestic abuse cannot be forced into any part of mediation against that party’s wishes. It also requires mediators to screen for domestic abuse and bars mediation when abuse appears to have occurred unless the alleged victim authorizes it and the mediation is conducted in a specialized, safety-protective manner by a mediator trained in domestic abuse.
The bill further clarifies that when a temporary restraining order or protective order is in effect, the court may not require the alleged victim to participate in mediation. If no such order is in place, mediation may still be ordered only with the alleged victim’s authorization and only under the specialized, safety-focused conditions described in the bill. The measure defines “domestic abuse” by reference to existing law in section 586-1 and applies prospectively, without affecting rights, duties, penalties, or proceedings that arose before its effective date.
Impact
SB1520 would change chapters 580 and 584 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by creating a new domestic-abuse exemption from mediation in paternity cases and by updating the divorce and child custody/visitation mediation rules to use consistent domestic-abuse language. It replaces older references such as “battered spouses” and “family violence” with “domestic abuse,” broadening and standardizing the terminology used in these family court provisions. The practical effect is to reduce mandatory mediation requirements for alleged victims of domestic abuse and to impose screening and training requirements on mediators handling these cases.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows clear support for the bill in committee, with unanimous or near-unanimous passage in both the Senate Health and Human Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate opposition. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed favorably as a protective measure for domestic violence survivors and as a clarification of existing mediation exemptions.
Contention
The main policy issue is the balance between court-connected mediation and victim safety. The bill limits judicial discretion by prohibiting mandatory mediation when domestic abuse is alleged and by requiring victim authorization before mediation can proceed in certain cases. Any potential concern would likely come from those who favor mediation as a routine tool in family disputes or who worry about reduced opportunities to resolve paternity, custody, or divorce matters outside of litigation. The bill addresses those concerns by allowing mediation only when the alleged victim agrees and when a trained mediator can provide a specialized, safety-protective process.