Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-14
(a) Except as provided in sections 603-21.5 and 604-8, the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction:
(2) To try any adult charged with:
(9) For the protection of vulnerable adults under chapter 346, part X;
provided that in any case within paragraph (1) or (2), the court, in its discretion, may waive its jurisdiction over the offense charged; provided further that in any case within paragraph (3), (4), or (6), the attorney general, through the child support enforcement agency, may exercise concurrent jurisdiction as provided in chapter 576E.
(c) The court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court over violations of section 711-1106.4.
[(d)] The court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court in all proceedings to appoint a guardian of an adult.
[L 1965, c 232, pt of §1; Supp, §333-11; am L 1967, c 56, §2; HRS §571-14; am L 1973, c 211, §1(1); am L 1976, c 85, §6; am L 1980, c 232, §27; am L 1982, c 238, §2; am L 1983, c 79, §1; am L 1984, c 50, §1; am L 1986, c 285, §1; am L 1988, c 154, §3; am L 1989, c 61, §1 and c 381, §3; am L 1992, c 86, §1; am L 1996, c 89, §17; am L 1997, c 295, §2; am L 1998, c 64, §1 and c 190, §4; am L 2002, c 9, §1; am L 2004, c 18, §1 and c 161, §30; am L 2008, c 154, §26; am L 2025, c 298, §11]
Commitment, see chapters 333F and 334.
Guardianship, see chapter 560, article V.
Even assuming that, for purposes of this section, defendant did not have physical custody of complainant during the times of the alleged offenses, and the family court was, therefore, without jurisdiction over those counts of the indictment, the judge, in the judge's capacity as a circuit court judge, properly exercised jurisdiction over those counts under §571-4. 103 H. 214, 81 P.3d 394 (2003).
The fact that defendant was a "family or household member" for purposes of §709-906 did not satisfy paragraph (1)'s subject matter jurisdiction factual criteria because a "family or household member" is not by that fact "the child's parent or guardian or … any other person having the child's legal or physical custody". 77 H. 260 (App.), 883 P.2d 682 (1994).
The question whether defendant had legal or physical custody of stepdaughter was subject matter jurisdictional question of fact for court to decide, not an essential element of the alleged offense for the jury to decide. 77 H. 260 (App.), 883 P.2d 682 (1994).
No equal protection violation for use of preponderance of evidence standard of proof for §586-5.5 as family and household members not suspect class and rational basis underlying this standard adopted by legislature under this chapter for chapter 586 was to facilitate and expedite judicial issuance of protective orders. 85 H. 197 (App.), 940 P.2d 404 (1997).
Under paragraph (8) and §571-42, family court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over chapter 586 proceedings and applicable standard of proof to be applied in those proceedings is preponderance of the evidence. 85 H. 197 (App.), 940 P.2d 404 (1997).
Where family court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under this section, charge of harassment against defendant husband remanded for dismissal. 98 H. 287 (App.), 47 P.3d 754 (2002).