Hawaii Senate Bill SB130

Hawaii 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/18/23
• Refer: 1/20/23
• Report Pass: 3/2/23
• Engrossed: 3/7/23
• Refer: 3/9/23

Caption

Relating To The Uniform Child-custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act.

Impact

The enactment of SB130 will amend the existing family laws in Hawaii, adding provisions that allow state courts to prioritize human rights when evaluating foreign child-custody determinations. This aligns with a growing recognition of diverse issues surrounding human rights and may serve as a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future. The bill's approach acknowledges that certain international laws can conflict with the values upheld by the state of Hawaii.

Summary

Senate Bill 130 (SB130) pertains to the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and aims to stipulate under which conditions Hawaii courts may or may not enforce child-custody determinations made by foreign countries. The bill specifies that if the laws of a foreign country impose capital punishment for practices such as apostasy or homosexuality, and if a parent or child demonstrates a risk of being subjected to such laws, the court in Hawaii may refuse to apply the chapter regarding child-custody determinations. This amendment extends the state courts' discretion in international child-custody matters, ensuring alignment with human rights standards.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB130 appears supportive among legislators who prioritize human rights and the protection of individuals from potentially harmful foreign laws. Proponents argue that it is necessary to safeguard both children and parents from jurisdictions that may impose severe penalties based on personal beliefs or orientations. However, there could be dissent concerning the broader implications of the bill, particularly regarding its impact on international relationships and the treatment of foreign laws in state courts.

Contention

Notable points of contention focus on the balance between respecting international law and ensuring the protection of human rights. Opponents may argue that the bill could lead to an overly cautious approach towards recognizing foreign custody orders, potentially complicating international family law matters. The specific exclusions regarding enforcement of laws from countries that punish apostasy or homosexuality raise discussions about how much discretion should be afforded to courts in interpreting human rights standards when dealing with international custody cases.