RELATING TO FAMILY SAFETY.
SB3331 is a comprehensive family-safety and family-court reform bill that would substantially revise Hawaii law across child welfare, domestic violence, custody, and court administration. It designates 2027 as the “Year of Resilience, Safety, and Survivor Justice” and directs the state to support survivor-led education, community partnerships, trauma-informed services, and culturally grounded approaches. The bill then modernizes statutory definitions of “harm,” “child abuse or neglect,” and “coercive control” to explicitly include emotional, psychological, digital, economic, and dignity-based harm, and to clarify that abuse can exist without visible injury or physical contact.
A major portion of the bill would change how family courts handle abuse-related cases. It would treat coercive control, litigation abuse, economic abuse, and exposure to abuse as legally relevant forms of domestic abuse and child harm; prohibit reliance on parental alienation theories and “diagnosis shopping”; protect “protective parents” from being penalized for seeking safety; and require specialized training for judges, guardians ad litem, evaluators, mediators, and child welfare workers. The bill also creates a family violence docket, requires trained judicial officers for these cases, and establishes an advisory panel to guide training and oversight.
The bill would also add new protections in financial and custody disputes. It would impose automatic restraining-order style limits on financial conduct when divorce, separation, or custody cases are filed, authorize emergency hearings and ex parte financial freeze orders for economic abuse, and allow victims to sue financial institutions that improperly alter accounts in response to unilateral requests from an abusive party. In custody matters, economic abuse would weigh against custody and unsupervised visitation, and severe violent offenses such as attempted murder, strangulation, kidnapping, and sexual assault would trigger permanent protective orders and strong presumptions against custody or unsupervised contact.
Another significant component would overhaul child welfare oversight. The bill creates a child welfare ombudsman, requires annual independent audits of child welfare decisions, mandates enhanced review after adverse outcomes, and prohibits “coerced protective action” policies that pressure parents to leave abusive relationships or obtain restraining orders as a condition of being considered protective. It also requires trauma-informed closure communications and public reporting of anonymized data. The bill includes appropriations for audits, training, data systems, and the ombudsman position.
Overall, the bill’s apparent policy direction is strongly survivor-centered and child-safety focused, and its structure suggests an intent to correct perceived gaps in how courts and agencies respond to non-physical abuse. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the materials beyond the bill’s own findings and report description. The bill was last referred back to HHS and JDC/WAM, which indicates it remained under committee review rather than advancing to final passage at the time of the last action.
SB3331 would amend or add provisions across chapters 350, 412, 580, 586, 587A, 571, 346, and 96 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, creating new legal definitions and procedures for child abuse, domestic violence, custody, financial abuse, reproductive privacy, and child welfare oversight. It would expand the legal recognition of non-physical abuse, require courts and agencies to consider coercive control and economic abuse in custody and protective-order decisions, bar certain evidence and theories in family court, and create new enforcement tools, sanctions, and private rights of action. It would also establish new administrative structures, including a child welfare ombudsman, a family violence docket, and an advisory panel, while appropriating funds for implementation.
The bill’s own findings and report language reflect a strongly supportive, survivor-centered posture, emphasizing child safety, trauma-informed practice, and systemic reform. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded external debate or vote sentiment to summarize. The available context suggests the measure was treated as a major policy package and was still under committee consideration when last referred to HHS and JDC/WAM.
The bill’s most likely points of contention are its broad redefinition of abuse and coercive control, its categorical rejection of parental alienation theories, and its restrictions on custody, visitation, mediation, and court evidence. Opponents may also object to the private right of action, sanctions against attorneys and evaluators, liability for financial institutions, and the creation of new oversight and training mandates. Supporters would likely argue these provisions are necessary to protect survivors, children, and protective parents from systems that minimize non-physical abuse and misuse of court processes.