PART II. 
JURISDICTION



 



§587-11  Jurisdiction.  Pursuant to
[section] 571-11(9), the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in a
child protective proceeding concerning any child who was or is found within the
State at the time the facts and circumstances occurred, are discovered, or are
reported to the department, which facts and circumstances constitute the basis
for the finding that the child is a child whose physical or psychological
health or welfare is subject to imminent harm, has been harmed, or is subject
to threatened harm by the acts or omissions of the child's family. [L 1983, c
171, pt of §1; am L 1986, c 316, §3; am L 1992, c 190, §7]



 



Case Notes



 



  Cited, where plaintiffs sought reimbursement of legal fees
expended during proceedings initiated pursuant to the Hawaii Child Protective
Act, prior to the initiation of any Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.) proceedings and argued that the federal court had
jurisdiction to hear their claim for attorneys' fees under 20 U.S.C.
§1415(i)(3)(B);  plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  374 F. Supp. 2d 886.



  In the context of Child Protective Act proceedings involving
parents neither resident nor domiciled in Hawaii, personal jurisdiction may not
be exercised over a parent pursuant to this section to terminate their parental
rights unless due process requirements are satisfied.  83 H. 367, 926 P.2d
1290.



  As claim that health department was legally obligated to pay
for child's services at private residential treatment center arose under the
federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and child did not pursue
the remedies available under the federal act to establish health department's
obligation to pay for the services, family court lacked jurisdiction to order
the department to pay for the services.  96 H. 272, 30 P.3d 878.



  The harm to the children and threatened harm to them within
the State, along with father's related in-state conduct, were sufficient to
support subject matter jurisdiction and the resulting order granting foster
custody to the State.  99 H. 522, 57 P.3d 447.