SB1104 would amend Hawaii’s child abuse and neglect statute to clarify that a child’s lack of adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, supervision, or similar necessities is considered child abuse or neglect only when the caregiver is financially able to provide those needs and fails to do so, or is offered financial or other reasonable means to provide them and refuses. The bill is framed as a response to the overlap between poverty and neglect, stating that poverty alone should not be treated as neglect and should not, by itself, place families within the statutory definition of child abuse or neglect.
The bill leaves the rest of the child abuse/neglect definition intact, including provisions covering physical injury, sexual abuse, psychological harm, dangerous drugs, labor trafficking, and sex trafficking. Its practical effect would be to narrow one portion of the existing definition in section 350-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by adding an explicit financial-ability qualifier to neglect based on unmet basic needs. The measure would take effect upon approval.
SB1104 would amend section 350-1 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which defines “child abuse or neglect,” by inserting a financial-ability limitation into the subsection covering failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, care, or supervision. As a result, child welfare reporting and findings based on unmet basic needs would require proof that the responsible caregiver could provide those needs and failed to do so, or was offered reasonable assistance and declined it. The bill does not alter the statute’s other abuse categories, including physical abuse, sexual exploitation, psychological injury, drug exposure, labor trafficking, or sex trafficking.
The bill’s stated purpose suggests a protective, family-supportive approach, and the available context shows no recorded opposition, votes, or committee testimony. The overall sentiment appears to be that the measure is intended to prevent poverty alone from being treated as neglect while preserving the state’s ability to intervene in cases of actual abuse or willful failure to provide care. Because the bill was only referred to HHS and JDC, the legislative record provided does not show whether it advanced further or generated formal debate.
The main point of contention is the line between poverty and neglect. Supporters of the bill’s approach would likely argue that families should not face child abuse findings solely because they lack resources, while critics may worry that adding a financial-ability requirement could make it harder for child welfare agencies to respond when children’s basic needs are unmet. Another possible issue is how agencies would determine whether a caregiver was “financially able” or had been offered “financial or other reasonable means” and whether those standards could complicate investigations or create uneven application across cases.