House Standing Committee on Human Services & Homelessness

Good morning. It's Tuesday, February 11, 2025 at 9:45am. We are meeting for the Committee on Human Services and Homelessness in Conference Room 329 at the State Capitol. I have... My name is Lisa Marten. I have my Vice Chair Ikaika Olds, Representative Keohokapu-Lee Loy, and we will see the others trickle in, no doubt.

Today, we are going to get started with our agenda. HB 963, relating to crimes against elders. It establishes strict liabilities for crimes against elders with respect to when they are 60 years age or older, making deleting the need for the perpetrator to have known that they were 60 years or older. And we have here to testify in opposition, the Office of the Public Defender.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is William Bento. I'm representing the Office of the Public Defender. We do oppose the bill. We oppose the language and the purpose of it. We do feel that by getting rid of the state of mind, you're taking away the hope to deter people from specifically targeting individuals that may be 60 years of age or older, and that was the whole purpose of the bill in the first place.

There were several cases that had occurred within, at least in Honolulu, I'm sure, on our neighbor islands as well, where seniors were targeted, and so the purpose of the bill was to go after individuals that target those people. So the way it reads now is the age of the person was known, and that deals with things that happen within the family, that sort of thing, and reasonably should be known.

So if you see someone that may be infirm or ill and that person gets targeted and they're 60 years of age or older, the state of mind is satisfied. We would propose that it might be a better way to deal with this situation, to perhaps amend sections of 706, which deal with sentencing, to give judges the ability to enhance a sentence if they feel it's necessary where someone is targeting seniors or people that may be having difficulty.

Or language that disregards the age entirely and protects those that appear to be ill or infirm or perhaps vulnerable in some way. Language can be crafted in that way. Simply because you could have someone who's 59 and quite infirm, but they don't fall into this class, and someone who is well above 60 and may be very robust.

I just want to leave you with one thing. In the past, the Legislature has carved out groups of people to give them more protection. I've listed that in our testimony. But in all those instances, the defendant would have to know or should know that that person is of that class or group. Police officers, educational workers, et cetera. This bill would totally change the way we view that language and the protection of those specific groups. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. Oh, not here. Okay. In support, we have AARP Hawaii in support in person. Okay, we have... Do we have Sandie Wong on Zoom? Okay, we have three individuals in support. Members, are there any questions? Okay, I'm sorry. Can you... Okay, okay. It said you were going to be on Zoom. Did you want to speak? Okay. Yeah, yeah, that's why it threw me off. Come on up, Sandie.

Yeah, that's my little kick all in case something comes up. Sorry. So, good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Sandie Wong. You might recognize me. I'm usually here as a lobbyist. Today I'm here on my individual capacity. I'm in strong support of this bill. You know, the sections that's referenced in this bill were meant to protect kupunas. However, there's a loophole. It's the state of mind loophole saying, oh, the assailant should have known that the person was 60 years or over.

But that's so subjective. You know, on bad days... I'm 64. On bad days I can look 70. On good days, when I have all my makeup on, I can look 50. But so it's so subjective. And so I shouldn't be punished simply because I am a kupuna. I deserve the protection, but I shouldn't be punished simply because I look good. You know, instead I should be rewarded for that. But this was a personal experience for me. On a weekday at 9 o'clock, I was walking my dog, I was assaulted by a kid.

I called the police when they came, and it went to the prosecutor's office. When they looked at the body cam, they said, oh, we're not going to try this as a kupuna case simply because you don't look like you're a kupuna. And so one part of me was great. I'm flattered that I didn't look 60.

But another part of me really felt an injustice because I am a kupuna and so I should get that added protection. And the most appalling thing about when I was assaulted, when the assailant saw me calling the police, he yelled back at me and he said, go ahead, call the police. Nothing's going to happen to me.

He was so brazen about that. So whether or not he knew a kupuna or not, I think by having the strict liability, you make them think twice because maybe she is a kupuna and the higher penalty will occur. And so they may think twice about committing a crime. So I strongly urge you to pass this bill out. Thank you.

Thank you for coming to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Oh, please. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I'm sorry, I was upstairs at another...

That's fine. Thank you for coming.

Immediately before I joined as a, on the legislative team, I was with the elder abuse unit, so I've seen these cases. Oftentimes it's very clear in cases, especially of stranger assault, that you can prove that this person attacked quite viciously someone because they were weak and because they look like an easy target.

But it's often very hard to prove that they knew what that person's age was. It's the 59 and a half year old defense. They're going to go to court and say, I thought that I was hitting someone who was 59 and a half years old. This is clogging up our courts with trials where there is no question that there was an assault that occurred. The only question that the jury is deliberating is whether or not this person looks over 60 years old.

And in cases of a theft or a forgery, we might often have that because those are crimes that are usually deliberated. But in cases of assaults, which are very violent, chaotic occurrences, that evidence may not be available and juries will have to fall back on stereotypes. They will have to decide whether or not this person looks like someone who is old.

What we say is that the harm that is caused in all of these cases is the same harm. That when an elderly person is attacked, that the greater risk of vulnerability that they face is the same as for other people in their group. Now, there is a smaller set where we can prove that they selected this person because of age, but we already have extended sentencing to be able to get stiffer penalties for those people. So oftentimes you have this extremely bimodal result.

One group that committed an assault against an elderly person and walks away with a misdemeanor, and another one who committed an assault against an elderly person, but we have the evidence because they shouted out something like, oh, you old geezer. Right.

And that person's going to be getting, you know, know 10 years or 20 years because you would not only have the enhanced sentence or the increased grade, but you would have an extended sentence on top of that. What we say is that there's a reasonable middle ground.

There are the cases where these people are causing the exact same harm. And as we quote Lord Lawton, you take your victim as you find them. If you're going out and you're picking on weak people or people who you think you can get away with a fight and that person turns out to be over the age of 60, the law should hold you accountable for what you actually did. And that's what we're asking for. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none Members, are there any questions of our testifiers? Thank you, folks, for being here. And we will move on to our next Measure, which is HB 384 relating to sexual offenses against minors.

This increases the penalty for promoting minor produced sexual images, so images taken by the minors themselves, to a felony if the person is more than three years older than the minor, extends a probationary term for felony obscenity offenses, pulls a statute of limitations for obscenity offenses during a victim's minority, and requires the sex offender registration for felony obscenity offenses involving minors. And first up, we have the Office of the Public Defender in opposition.

Good morning once again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. William Bento of the Public Defender's Office. As our testimony was in the last bill and in this bill, you have a written testimony, see the specific things that we're concerned about. Really, in general, what we're concerned about is absurd results.

And that, we believe is what happens when a statute gives the government, the prosecution, a very wide net. If there are specific people that they wish to target with these bills or with this law, then it should be spelled out clearly within the language of the bill.

And the reason is because when you have too wide a net, you get absurd results, and I've given some examples of that in our testimony. That's our real concern. We would ask that if this body wishes to pass out such a bill that it be very narrowly construed to target those individuals that you're hoping to prosecute you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Prosecuting Attorney.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The Legislature has already decided that all of the things that we're discussing here are crimes. So promoting minor produced images is a misdemeanor, and it's a misdemeanor no matter the ages of the respective parties. Now, the issue that, as we brought up in our testimony, is that we are increasingly seeing cases of sextortion.

Cases where people are impersonating a fellow minor and obtaining under, you know, feigning romantic interest and then obtaining intimate images of the minor on that basis and then threatening them with it. Now if the threat involves money, we can prosecute them for extortion. But if what we're dealing with here is just a predator who wants to humiliate this child, then what we're left with is prosecuting them for a misdemeanor.

We think that it is a quite reasonable compromise to extend to felonies cases where there's a greater than 3 year age disparity. This means that if a 15 year old and an 18 year old are exchanging images, the law will still continue to treat it as a misdemeanor. A 16 year old and a 19 year old are, the law will continue to treat it as a misdemeanor. But if a 40 year old man is soliciting images from an 11 year old girl, the sort of cases that we see, then the law will treat that as a felony.

And it's important that it does treat it at least as a class C felony because, in the absence of the minor produced images law, we probably would prosecute these cases as child pornography, producing child pornography, which is a class A felony. But because we have the minor produced images law, there's something called the Modico rule, which requires us, when you have the same elements, to go with the more lenient of the two possible criminal offenses.

So right now, if we're looking at cases where this person has basically used a minor to create child pornography, we have to prosecute that as a misdemeanor rather than as a class A felony. So at least under, under this bill it would be a class C felony.

We also are proposing other amendments to sexual offenses laws, which bring it into conformance with the way that we treat sexual offenses against minors. And when we talk about obscenity offenses, what we're really usually talking about here is either the prostituting of minors or cases that involve promoting pornography to minors. And that's what's covered under that chapter within, sorry, that part of Chapter 712. I'm happy to answer any questions about our bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Honolulu Police Department in support on Zoom. Not present. But in support we have Master Shelby Billionaire on Zoom. Not present. In support. We have two individuals. Oh, no. We have HCAN Speaks in support in writing and another individual in support, written testimony.

Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? I have a lot of questions. Sorry. I had a neighborhood board meeting last night, and I had a hearing going till late, so I didn't have a lot of time to go through this. But if I could get the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, please. Did you get a chance to read the testimony from the Public Defender? Because this law would only apply to people, perpetrators who are 18 or older. Right?

Correct.

So when you're talking about the difference in the age, the three years versus more than three years, it really only applies to a narrow band of ages because the perpetrator has to be at least 18.

Correct. So the law, the promoting minor produced images in the first degree only applies at present to someone who is age 18 or older. That's one of the elements, I believe, when the...

And that's something you want to maintain?

Yes. Yes. Yeah, we're only prosecuting adults here. I mean, if this is, if this is genuinely a case of minors who are exchanging images with each other, that's probably better for the way that the juvenile courts handle this. You know, a confidential proceeding where people can probably advise them about the wisdom of that. But when we're talking about, what we're talking about here are criminal predators and adults.

Okay, so you, by having this differentiation with the three years, you're trying to carve out people that might be 18, 19, 20 and have a bona fide romantic interest in somebody that is close to their age?

Right. You know, somebody who recently has graduated from high school and continues to have a relationship with someone from their high school. This was the scenario that was brought up when the minor produced images law was first passed. I believe the Public Defender's testimony was about an 18 year old and a 17 year old exchanging images with each other. You know, the Legislature has decided that that is a misdemeanor and we're fine with keeping it that way. That's, those are not the sort of cases that we're wanting to bring.

Right. There was... Did you notice in the Public Defender's testimony there was some reference being open to harsher penalties if it's part of a greater scheme to plan to commit further crimes of a similar nature? That seems very hard to prove that something is, something that you catch in an early phase might be part of a plan or a scheme. Is that something, is that language that you folks could work with or not?

So, two scenarios where we usually are wanting to prosecute promoting pornography for minors, just to take one example. The first case is where we're in the very early stages of grooming behavior, and so we would want to have a quick way to intervene.

And so having to prove that this person is also wanting to eventually sexually assault the child would be, I think, an unreasonable burden to place. The other cases, unfortunately, are cases where we're looking back retrospectively and the promoting pornography was part of the grooming behavior.

You know, we do have those cases where the statute of limitations has not elapsed on the actual sexual offenses, but unfortunately, it elapses on promoting pornography. And it's a, it's a pretty common tool to sexualize young children early on and then use that as leverage to exploit and gain greater sexual access to the child.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, are there any other questions? Okay, we will move on to the next measure, HB 1100. Excuse me. Which updates the name of the Neighbor Islands Blind and Visually Impaired Service pilot program and calls it instead visually impaired-- Oh, no, replaces visually impaired, which is offensive, with the term low vision.

All right. And we have in support the Director, Department of Human Services.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Lea Dias. I am the administrator of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation here on behalf of Director Ryan Yamane.

And we've submitted and we will stand on our written testimony in support of this administrative measure, which, as you mentioned, changes the name of the pilot project as a response to our blind community. It also clarifies the pilot program's implementation time frames. We expect to be submitting a governor's message requesting an appropriation for this as well.

Okay, thank you.

Next up, we have. Do we have Peter Fritz on Zoom? Please go ahead.

Okay. Can you hear me? Okay, video finally came on. That's why I was-- I just wanted-- I express my support. I stand on my written testimony, and I believe the term for the reasons expressed in my testimony. It is not positive and derogatory. I'm a person with an individual with a disability.

I am hard of hearing. I'm not hearing impaired because there's nothing wrong or impaired about me. I'm here testifying, and I can say exactly what I mean.

So I'm in strong support of this name change and would like to see something in the Committee report requesting that this also be carried over to other instances in the Hawaii revised statute to remove the word impaired. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. And thank you for educating us on that. We also have in support the National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii, two individuals in support, one in opposition, in writing. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none? Are there any questions? Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. For DHS, thank you so much for advancing this. I just had a question because in the justification sheets for this bill, there was a little delay standing it up because of the Maui wildfires. But it also mentions that the department is needing to develop administrative rules.

Yes.

Where are you on that timeline? And I hear you guys loud and clear. Stuff happened, but just kind of making sure everything's on track for the development of those administrators.

We are just in the very, very beginning stages, to be honest, of working with our Deputy Attorney General on that.

So just mapping it all out. We change the name of the program, we get the funding. Does that extend the lifeline or time frame of standing up this--

We're hopeful not. We are hopeful that we'll be able to start in 26.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I also wanted to note, my very astute Vice Chair, when I said there was one individual in opposition, that individual mixed up their House and Senate bills and was actually testifying in opposition to a completely separate measure. So all support. Yeah, I was wondering, I'm like, why would anyone care? Why would anyone oppose this?

Okay, Members, are there any other questions? Seeing none. We'll move on to our next measure, which is HB 1283, which establishes an exemption from mediation and paternity proceedings where there are allegations of domestic abuse. And we first up have in support the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Please come up.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Member. I'm Angie Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

I stand on our written testimony and also point this committee to some of the testimony that was actually submitted by individuals today that really talk about the impact that this has on survivors, fear level and the ability to feel safe in any of these types of proceedings.

And also want to point out that this also matches our divorce statute as well. So it really is complementary and also makes some really important changes with this distinction about spousal. Like, we don't really talk about spousal abuse anymore. We really talk about domestic abuse amongst intimate partners.

And also, you know, we're really grateful that the judiciary has also supported this measure. And I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We also had in support the Judiciary State of Hawaii, Hawai'i Children's Action Network Speaks and three individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure. Members, are there any questions?

Seeing none. We will move on to our next measure, HB 689, which establishes safe harbor protection for survivors of sexual exploitation who seek medical or law enforcement assistance. And we have in support Honolulu Police Department. Are they on Zoom? Please go ahead, Officer. Your mic is muted. We can't hear you.

I apologize for that. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm Captain Pacarro with the Honolulu Police Department's Narcotics Vice Division. We've submitted testimony in support of this bill, specifically in regards to taking a victim centered approach to enforcement. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Imua Alliance, Amy Zhao, in support on Zoom.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of HB 689, which establishes safe harbor protections for survivors of sexual exploitation. My name is Amy Zhao. I'm a junior at Iolani School, and I'm also the Youth Justice Advocate at Imua Alliance, an organization dedicated to combating human trafficking and supporting survivors across our state.

Right now, our state's laws allow sex traffickers to silence victims of exploitation. Traffickers often tell their victims that if they speak up to law enforcement about the sexual exploitation they are enduring, they'll be tried and detained for prostitution. So this loophole in our state law enables a false narrative that traps victims in sexual servitude and denies justice to young girls who are trafficked for sex. HB 689 closes this loophole by ensuring that no survivor is punished for the exploitation that they unwillingly endured.

It also recognizes that these individuals are victims and survivors and not criminals and that their exploitation should never be used as a weapon to keep them silenced. Without this protection, survivors will remain trapped in fear, unable to seek help from law enforcement or escape from their abusers.

So this bill really empowers victims to come forward, allowing them to seek justice and holding traffickers accountable. I strongly urge this Committee to pass HB 689 and ensure that every survivor can seek justice. Mahalo, and I'm open to questions. Thank you.

Thank you for your compelling testimony today. Next is... Okay, we had another one in support. Written testimony in support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and from two individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, noting the presence of representative Alcos as well. Welcome. Are there any questions for our testifiers? Okay. Support.

Okay. Next up, we have HB 383 which reinstates mandatory minimum jail sentences for successive violations of the same order for protection. It removes the distinction between domestic and non-domestic violations of an order of protection and eliminates the court's ability to suspend mandatory minimum sentences. And first up, we have in opposition the Office of the Public Defender.

Good morning once again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is William Bento from the Office of the Public Defender.

I think the thing that we want to emphasize, and you have our written testimony, I don't want to just repeat what it says, but what we wish to emphasize is that not all of these cases are the same. So they are not all involving someone who's perpetrating physical abuse within the family.

We have many situations where there are multiple violations of a stay away order, including those individuals that are suffering from mental health issues sometimes exacerbated by substance abuse disorder. The family removes them from the only home that they've ever known and that person comes back to the home because they don't know anything else.

And the people who called the police on that person for the first time. And I cannot tell you how many times I've received calls from those family members, not clients, but those family members who say, I don't know why they arrested him. I just wanted him or her to get help.

And so there's a belief that the criminal justice system is there to help people with these issues and problems. And it's really not designed to do that.

However, part of what this bill removes is the incentive part that a judge uses to get people to go and get that help and get better from substance abuse or mental health issues. If they show success in that area, the judge can use that as mitigation in the sentence. This bill removes that.

And so as I said, we're not talking about the most extremely bad cases. We're also talking about individuals who in a sense can even be considered victims of this type of measure. And so I just ask you to please consider that. And I'm open for questions as well. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have in support the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. This is not a draconian bill and it does not remove judges discretion. This is a misdemeanor and the judge still has a wide range of sentencing options.

What it does is it treats a protective order, which is an order that is received not only after service and notice to the respondent, but after a hearing where a judge has determined that the protective order should remain in place. It treats a protective order just like a temporary restraining order.

The penalties for a temporary restraining order already carry a mandatory minimum of two days in jail. Once somebody gets a protective order, the charging clock is wiped away. And now any new violations of that protective order are treated as first offenses, no matter how many times the temporary restraining order was violated.

We think that it is reasonable to treat the protective order, which is also a court order and which actually has a greater level of judicial review than the temporary restraining order exactly like the temporary restraining order.

Now, we gave in our testimony also a chart of a pretty common scenario that we have, and we didn't exaggerate this.

We didn't add in a case where somebody, you know, the worst sort of cases that we get in the office where somebody not only breaks the temporary restraining order, but violently does so those can be prosecuted as felonies. We gave you a pretty common scenario. Ex-husband shows up with dead flowers.

These are the sort of violations that we're dealing with, things that are not-- They are not necessarily the very worst crimes, but they are traumatic to our victims.

And when our victims don't see the justice system doing anything, and when they actually see lighter penalties for what they thought was a protective order that had a greater level of judicial review, they lose their faith in the rationality and the integrity of the justice system. That's what we're asking you to restore.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, I'm Angie Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And on behalf of our Member programs, we do submit testimony in support of this measure and we respectfully request a couple of amendments.

So one of them, we hope, addresses what the prosecutors have identified, which is adding language to Section one, sub one, page two, line nine. And you'll actually see it also from the Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney's Office about trying to get enhancements.

And so it is, you know, we do, as a, as a community have to make the distinction in these types of offenses, abuse of a family and household Member is all encompassing. So as the public defenders have indicated, you'll have, you know, familial relations and issues that are, that happen.

But we also have in that statute, intimate partner violence. And what I'm really speaking to is the impact of intimate partner violence. We cannot underestimate the impact that it has on a survivor to have their abusive partner come to them with non physical interaction.

And so we can no longer, after including coercive control in our definition of abuse of a family and household Member, really think that bringing somebody dead flowers is not going to have an immense impact on them or that a text message, as was stated in the prior testimony, is not going to have an immense impact and does not have malicious intent.

Because we know that is often the case. So that's why we really want to ensure that if somebody has already violated a temporary restraining order and it's the same judicial case, right.

And they're now violating the protective order, that we start to understand that as a community and really treat it as a potential danger for not only that person, but the public health and community at large.

And we want to be able to give the prosecutors and the judges remedies to be able to ameliorate that on behalf of our community.

And I also want to point out, I actually would like to see judges be able to have the discretion to waive the minimum sentencings in the instance where we do have a survivor who is a respondent because there's been a misidentification of primary aggressor. And we do often see that.

I had a survivor come to me and tell me the time that they got thrown out of the car by their abusive partner. They were disoriented. Two blocks later, they got arrested by the police. They had the temporary restraining order against them because their abusive partner got to the courthouse before them.

And the fact that we do have Members of our community where they would benefit from substance abuse services, mental health services, and we want to make sure that people do get assessed appropriately for anger management or domestic violence intervention services. I'm available for any other questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have on Zoom, HPD. Nope, not anymore. In support and then written testimony and support from the County of Hawaii, office of the Prosecuting Attorney from Domestic Violence Action center and two individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

All right, then we are going to move on to our next measure, which is HB 320, which is related to supported decision-making agreements for qualified adults, including adults with a disability, mentally ill adults, and adults 65 years or older, to enter into supported decision-making agreements with one or more members of a supportive community.

And first up for this we have the Hawaii State Council on Deaf Developmental Disabilities.

Hello. Good morning, Chair.

So, I'm sorry, you have a colleague in person here. Did you want to speak or did you want to let him speak? You both want to speak? Okay, go ahead.

Should I start?

Yes, you should.

Sorry about that. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and esteemed Committee Members. I'm Julia Althoff, testifying on behalf of State Council on Developmental Disabilities in strong support of House Bill 320, which establishes legal supported decision-making agreements. Formal SDM agreements will ensure that people with disabilities retain autonomy while also getting the necessary support.

The principle of least restrictive alternatives has guided disability rights for decades. Before that, people were relegated to institutions just because they had a disability. But now they live, work, and thrive in their communities.

Just as we moved away from institutionalizing people with disabilities, we must move away from automatically stripping people of their basic rights by placing them under guardianships when they can make their own decisions with support. I've worked with people with disabilities since 1989. I've seen firsthand that people thrive when they can make choices about their own lives.

Every single person that I've worked with has benefited from being able to have as much control over their life as possible. We all need support to make decisions. Like if you're building a house, you talk to an architect. If you have a medical procedure, you talk to your doctor and your family. And this isn't different.

So the question is, why do we need a law to establish it? We need it because organizations require documentation to protect themselves from liability. Doctors, banks, and other entities need legal proof that a supporter is authorized to help someone avoid violet-- and they can avoid violating regulations like HIPAA or financial confidentiality laws.

Powers of attorney and releases of information can help, but they don't always give the right balance of support. SDM agreements let people with disabilities get the help they need while still making their own decisions.

The State Council on Developmental Disabilities strongly supports House Bill 320 because it protects the rights of people with disabilities, ensures legal recognition of supported decision-making agreements, prevents unnecessary guardianships, and aligns with national best practices for least restrictive alternatives. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We will now move to the in person Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Aloha Chair, Committee Members. My name is Che Silvert. I'm with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. So we're going to stand on our written testimony offering comments on this particular one.

We did provide two testimonies and that's because I, for the council in 2023, at the request of Representative Tarnas, have been hosting and facilitating a working group that was created because of a uniform law that was moving through.

And so basically, long story short, the working group decided or discussed that the uniform law wasn't the best fit for Hawaii. But instead of just dissolving the working group, we then started looking at, well, what are the issues that we face in Hawaii specifically when it comes to guardianship and conservatorships.

And so through that supportive decision-making was discussed and it was suggested that it could be a really good solution as an alternative. And that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here and welcome to Rep Amato. Next up, we have the State Council on Developmental-- Wait, we have-- Sorry, they all came up as in persons. All right, State Department of Health, Behavioral Health Administration.

Stand on our written testimony offering comments on the bill.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Department of Human Services, either in person or on Zoom. Not present. Present. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Lisa Amador, Department of Human Services, Adult Protective and Community Services, on behalf of Director Ryan Yamane. The Department of Human Services appreciates the intent, defers to other involved departments or agencies, offers comments. Thank you. I'm here for questions if you have any.

Thank you very much. We also have the Executive Office on Aging on Zoom. Caroline.

Aloha Chair-- Excuse me, Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Cristina Valenzuela on behalf of Executive Office on Aging. I'm here on behalf of our Director, Caroline Cadirao. She wasn't able to be here today.

Supportive decision-making agreements are an important tool that allow older adults and individuals with disabilities to be able to make decisions about their own lives with the support of people that they trust. Supportive decision making agreements enable folks to be able to maintain their Independence and their dignity.

For these reasons, we stand on our written testimony in support of HB 320. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Is the Attorney General's Office here? Testifying with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Margaret Leong for the Attorney General's Office. We have submitted testimony and offered comments and suggested revisions for your consideration. I'm available for questions should you have any. Thank you very much.

Thank you. That is very appreciated. Next up, we have on Zoom, Hawaii Disability Rights Center.

Yes. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you, Chair. I'm Lou Erteschik. I'm the Director of Disability Rights Center. This is probably our highest priority bill this session. This is really a great idea. This is a growing trend around the country.

I speak to my colleagues at the other protection and advocacy networks and more and more states are moving to this approach. Essentially, you know, we represent a lot of people that have developmental disabilities and so we represent them in their meetings with the DD division.

We do these ISPs called individual support plans, and they have what they call a circle of support where they gather a group of people that help them. There are some people who probably do need guardians.

I don't think anybody really argues with that, but there's a lot of people who are kind of borderline and really don't and all they need is a little bit of help to help them make decisions for themselves about their own lives. So this is really an excellent idea. And it's not only for their benefit.

You know, I've been working with Che and others on that in the guardianship group and we've been seeing all these issues in the whole guardianship system. The system is clogged up. There's a lot of cases. There's not enough resources.

So not only would this benefit the individuals themselves, it would also benefit the system because it would take some people out of the system who otherwise would have guardians, further tying up the judiciary. So it's really a win-win.

I did read the AG's testimony and some of the others, and I don't doubt that there may be some work and some amendments that are needed. But as a concept, it's really a great one. So I hope you'll give serious consideration to advancing the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have Kirby Shaw online? Okay. Disability and Communication Access Board in support. In person, we have individual Kaili Swan.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Kaili Swan. I'm a strong supporter of this bill because people with disability can make their own decision instead of the parents or their caregivers make a decision for individual people with disability. Please pass this bill. Please remember, any questions--

Let me talk straight a little short. I live with my mom and my mom make my own decisions. Then if this bill pass so I can make my own decision, then my mom makes approval. Thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you very much for being here today. Next up, we have written testimony in support from Hawaii Self Advocacy Advisory Council, Full Life and three individuals, one individual opposing. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Okay, we are not filtering our testimony very well, but our opposition is for a different bill. Is there anyone--

Members, any questions for our testifiers? Seeing none. I have some questions. As noted, so many organizations are supporting the intent of this bill but had comments because they wanted to see some amendments made. And we are going to adopt many of those amendments. But I wanted to ask Department of Health.

One of the comments you had was to disqualify supporters who provide paid support services or if they have past criminal convictions, in terms of which type of criminal conviction? Obviously not jaywalking or something like that.

Would you find it satisfactory to use the same list that is used for terminating someone, which is financial crimes, theft, or a crime against a vulnerable adult?

I think that it doesn't really address the pre-qualifications at all. And so there's no statement in the bill that says that somebody with a conflict of interest or a past criminal conviction from initially serving, just if they have a conflict of interest afterwards or shown to have a criminal conviction afterwards. But it's not--

I'm trying to work with you to get language to add that in.

I would say that the language might exist in other states' statutes. We haven't offered that particular language. This is just one of the concerns. And I would say there's multiple areas of concern that we could draw from other states. Thank you.

Members, are there any other questions? No, okay.

And then we are going to move on to our next Measure, which is HB359, which amends covered offender registration laws to include offenders who, while acting in a professional capacity, commit the offense of sexual assault in the fourth degree against a minor who is at least 16 years old, someone like a Doctor or something like that. Okay.

And first up, we have the Sex Abuse Treatment Center in Person.

Good morning. I believe we're still. Morning. Yes, good morning. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you so much. I'm Lynn Costales. I am the Executive Director of the Sex Abuse Treatment Center. We stand in support of this bill.

The only comment that I would make is that what the Bill seeks to address is not so much an age issue. It really has everything to do with the person acting in their professional capacity. It really is about someone abusing their position of authority against a minor, 16 and 17 years old.

And when they do so to lure, to groom, and to eventually touch a minor, we do think that that is warranting the covered offender statute to kick in such that they have to register and that it be publicly disclosed.

And then we would ask for that one amendment to also include sex assault in the fourth degree as a tier one offense. This particular subsection 1D. Otherwise, I have nothing further and I thank you for the time. And I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you very much.

Next up, we have the Attorney General's Office on zoom. Are they here? Nope, with comments. zero, fantastic. Thank you.

And good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Elise Oyama, as indicated in our testimony. So this is working to update Chapter 846Ee of the Hoya Revised Statutes.

I think what might have been missed is that the act revolving professional capacity was not just for sexual contact, but also for sexual penetration, just to provide the Committee with brief background. So the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center, HCJDC, what they do is they maintain our sex offender registry.

So when someone is convicted in Hawaii or if someone moves from the mainland that was on the registry and then comes into our state, their conviction is then reviewed to see if it is covered as a sex offense or a covered offense to meet the registry. But then it also needs to be tiered, which is the 846E10.

Tiered is just the statute's way of determining how long they need to be on the registry before they can then petition to have be terminated off of the registry.

So we just recommend, in addition to make sure that those offenses are both tiered, we did look at the other offenses within those tiers, and we believe that those are the appropriate fits.

We also made some suggestions as to other offenses that might have been missed in our sex offender registry, as well as affix to our penalties section. And I'll be available if there's any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Honolulu Police Department in support. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm acting Major Carlene of the Records and Identification Division of the Honolulu Police Department. We stand in honor written testimony in support of this bill. And I'm, I'll be available to answer questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Crime Victim Compensation Commission, State of Hawaii in support, not just in writing. And we have the Office of the Public Defender in opposition.

Good morning once again, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee, William Bento. On behalf of the Office of the Public Defender, we do understand the concern that's outlined or expressed in this bill.

However, we do want to point out, as we have in our written testimony, that again, we have situations that could be different than what is really intended. Anytime a person gets convicted of a case like this, there's usually a pre sentence report.

There are assessments that are done, and the judge is given information that could answer a really important question, which is, was this an aberration or is this a precursor to something worse? The judge in that situation is in a good position to make a determination as to that question.

But the Bill would, this Bill would treat everybody the same. And so for misdemeanors would require people to go on the registry. And as we've pointed out in our written testimony, this can be devastating to a young person for the long term, even after they may petition to get off that registry.

We live in the time of the Internet where everything lives forever once it gets online. And so that young person who perhaps maybe this was an aberration, maybe this was a poor judgment as opposed to a precursor to something far worse, will have to live with that for the rest of their life.

And so that's the concern that we have in regards to this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions? I would just comment that the victim also has to live with it for the rest of their life. Right. Moving on to the next measure, HB703, relating to Kupuna Housing.

It just extends the sunset date for the State Rent Supplement Program for Kupuna. And first up, we have Catholic Charities in support, Betty Lou.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Betty Lou Larson representing Catholic Charities Hawaii. We're supporting this bill because we are seeing nationally as well as locally greater increases in elderly homelessness. We have a special program called our Housing Assistance Program, which helps elders 60 years and older with, you know, information about housing and retaining housing. And many of them are now facing evictions because of higher rents, loss of a family member, many reasons, but these are long term tenants who have never been homeless.

And so they're really facing very tragic results. This kind of bill would really help them to, you know, fix that rent increase. It's up to $500 a month. I think the average now is just a little over 400 a month. So we feel that this would be something that would be great to help our elders to continue living at peace in their own homes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have AARP Hawaii in support. Thank you very much. We have on Zoom the Executive Office on Aging in support.

Aloha, Chair. Thank you. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Cristina Valenzuela with the Executive Office on Aging. As you know, many folks, with Hawaii's cost of living, many individuals and families are just one check away from becoming homeless. And many of these can also include older adults who are on fixed incomes. For these reasons, we support HB 703 that would assist older adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Is there, there's also written testimony and support from the Democratic Party of Hawaii and the Democratic Party of Hawaii Kupuna Caucus. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions for our testifiers? Seeing none. We're going to move on to our next measure, relating to child welfare.

This requires the Office of the Ombudsman to publish a quarterly report on its website that identifies a number and nature of complaints that it receives regarding Child Welfare Services and also requires the Child Welfare Services Branch to provide notification that complaints can be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.

And first up, we have the Office of the Ombudsman in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair Members Robin Matsunaga, State Ombudsman. I stand on my written testimony to offer some comments and some suggestions. Thank you for questions.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Next up, we have or maybe not here we have comments from Department of Human Services, support from the Hawaii Coalition of Child Protective Reform and comments from zero in person. Please come forward.

Daisy Good Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Daisy Hartsfield, the Social Services Division Administrator for the Department of Human Services. On behalf of Director Yomane. We did submit written testimony. I do want to clarify that it is for House Bill 640, House Draft 1, and it is for today's hearing.

February 11th at 9:45am the Department did submit its written testimony and we did review again all of the other testimony that was provided. So in addition to offering our comments, we found the testimony from the Office of the Ombudsman very persuasive and will defer to their office. Thank you all. I'm available for any questions as well.

Thank you very much. We had support from, in writing from the Hawaii Coalition of Child Protective Reform and comments from one individual. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Is there any questions for our testifiers? I have a question for the Office of Ombudsman. Thank you so much for being here today.

Thank you.

So I actually found your written testimony on the first time this Bill was heard with the, the breakdown on the complaints that had been, that had come to your office. Really, really insightful. And that is why I'd love to have that type of breakdown and maybe even a little bit more context on the website.

But I understand that quarterly, which is a suggestion that came from a discussion with you, might be too frequent, but yet I do find that information really useful as just a place, a marker to see how we're doing and over time to see, hopefully, a trend. Would semiannual be onerous now?

I think the point I was trying to make is that by making it a statutory requirement, if the legislatures or whoever would be reviewing those reports would find that they're not very useful, I'm still going to be required to prepare and post those reports until the statute is amended again to take that requirement out.

If you were to request such a report from my office, I could always provide that to you without having it in statute and requiring it to be done year after year after year after year.

Would you also be able to post it on your website so that the public could be informed?

I could, but again, the amount of information that I can provide is restricted by Section 96. 9, which requires my office to keep secret all matters that come to my office in the handling of complaints. It's to protect witnesses as well as the complainants from being identified through the reports that we publish.

So even when I publish my annual report and include a summary of some cases that we may have handled, we need to scrub those cases to make sure anyone who reads it can't associate that with anybody else, whether it's a complainant or an agency individual who is willing to testify or respond to our questioning.

Because otherwise it has a chilling effect on people who want to file complaints as well as witnesses that we need to interview to get, you know, frank responses.

Right? Yeah. I don't think there was any suggestion that there would be any detail like that. It's more just the nature of the complaint. Was it about lack of access to their case manager? Was it, you know, just to understand a broad nature, not any individual details? That was never part of it. Thank you very much.

Appreciate that. And for dhs, Daisy, since you're here, I understand that you folks already provide a flyer with all the information, all the different ways that one can contact the Office of the Ombudsman to a birth family when a child enters a child welfare system, is that right?

That's correct. But it's also my understanding that there might be some inconsistency because I have received concerns of families not receiving it from a worker. So again, that goes to the training and the consistency of making sure that there's a standard that all of our workers are meeting. Okay.

Do you think, do you think it would be possible? I think. What about other like, for example, teens in the foster care system? Would they be able to make a complaint with the Ombudsman's office? Or do you have to be 18?

You don't have to be 18, but there is a policy or an avenue for teens in the foster care system to file complaints. They have created their own Bill of rights and one of the things they're able to do is to file a complaint with the Teen Board, is my understanding.

And then from there CWS will look into those complaints.

Okay. The Teen Board, would they be as professional as the Ombudsman's Office?

I don't have an answer for that, but the Teen Board has been very professional. In my experience with them, they do receive the support and guidance from professionals and they're really strong advocates for youth in care. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.

Members of their questions. Moving on to our last Measure, which is HB549 relating to an Early Learning Apprentices grant program for the University of Hawaii to provide financial support for early learning program service providers. And first up, we have in support the Executive Office on Early Learning. Okay.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Yuko Ar, Director of the Executive Office on Early Learning. We support HB549HD1 and defer to the University of Hawaii on implementation and funding. Many people entering the early learning field are non traditional students who really benefit from the additional wraparound support and mentoring.

Included in this model, EOEL welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with UH on the grant award criteria and appreciates the Legislature's continued investment in our Keiki and their families. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the City and County of Honolulu in person. No, not here. In support, we also. zero, I'm sorry.

Sorry. Morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Jordana Ferrer with the City and County of Honolulu on behalf of Director Krekke with DCF, we stand on a written testimony in strong support of this bill and happy to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have in support the Early Childhood Action Strategy.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Vivian Ito with Early Childhood Action Strategy. We stand in strong support of this measure. We will stand on our written testimony and we're available for any questions. Thank you very much.

Next up, Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Chebel Davis with Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks and will stand on our written testimony in strong support of this bill and we are available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have University of Hawaii System, Nathan Murata. Are you here in support, but not here. We also have an individual on zoom, Terry Locke. Not there.

In support, we have written testimony and support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Department of Human Services, Early Learning Board, American Association of University Women, Kikioka Aina Family Learning center had multiple written testimonies in support and commit to Keiki as well as 24 individuals.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify in person or on ZOOM on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none, we are going to move right into decision making. And first up is HB 963 relating to crimes against elders. This one, we're just going to pass it out with a defective date, no other changes.

Or rather that's Chair's recommendation is to pass it out with just a date. Effective date, no changes. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll call]

Thank you very much. Next up, we have HB 384 relating to sexual offenses against minors. And this one again, I recommend we pass it out with just a defective date.

Voting on HB384, chairs recommendations to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up we have HB 1100 relating to Act 253. This is the one about changing the name of the pilot program to be to get rid of visually impaired instead put Low vision.

And for this one I want to accept some of the amendments offered and also change the preamble of Act 253 that refers to the old name of the pilot program to make the same change there and instead using the word Low vision and extend the sunset date of 6:302029 which coincides with the sunset date of Act 253 and affect the date.

Also note in the Committee report that it is unclear whether this Bill will need an additional appropriation in order to proceed with that.

Vice Chair for the voting on HB 1100. Chair recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up is HB 1283. This is with the exemption for mediation for paternity proceedings when somebody has been domestically abused. And I recommend just passing this out with a defective date or any comments, questions. Members, Vice Chair for the vote please.

Okay, voting on HB 1283. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up, HB689 relating to sexual exploitation. This is a safe harbors one and I recommend passing out with just a defective date. Members, are there any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 689. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up is HB383. This is the one that aligns temporary restraining orders and protective orders. For this one I want to take the testimony as written, submitted in writing from the from multiple domestic violence organizations regarding the two amendments and also to defect the date. Members, are there any questions or comments seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote voting HB383. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up we have HB 320. This is about the supported decision making agreements which I think is a really good idea. There were a lot of concerns and suggestions to address those concerns. So I would like to adopt all of the recommendations provided to us in writing by the AG's office.

I'd also like to adopt the Developmental Disabilities Council's recommendation to not use to put in include there that supported decision making will not be used as evidence for income, capacity or incompetency and to address some of the concerns raised by the Department of Health. I'm going to use the language provided by the bill's first primary author.

So on page 5 lines 1 through 7 add in after section A that provided that for the information protected medical information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability act of 1996 or Educational Records under 20 USC 1232 G which is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy act of 1974 shall require express written consent from the qualified adult so they have another layer of protection and then in addition to include language that would disqualify supporters in advance who provide paid support services or have passed criminal convictions, including those that are reasons for termination such as theft, financial crime or crime against a vulnerable adult and to defect the date in hopes that with all of this it'll be easier to further fine tune it in the next Committee Members are there any questions or comments?

Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB320 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up we have HB 359 related to covered offender registration.

For this one I'd like to defect the date and to adopt all of the AG's suggestions which were to amend the purpose to include sexual assault in the second degree, categorize how added offenses will be tiered and to make the timing of in person reporting every five years within 30 days of the offender's birthday rather than their date of birth since that could have happened a long time ago and affect the date if I didn't say that.

Members are there any comments or questions?

Seeing none voting on HB 359 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments any of Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next is HB 703 which is just extending the sunset date for the State Rep. State Rent Supplement Program for Kupuna and I recommend moving this forward just with a defective date. Members are there any questions or comments?

Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB703. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments any Members voting no with reservations. Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much.

Next up we have HB640HD1 relating to child welfare and for this one I recommend changing the reporting requirement for the Ombudsman's Office to an annual report as well as clarifying that the Child Welfare Service will provide the information about the Office of the Ombudsman not only to birth families but also to children in foster care and the resource caregivers.

Members are there any questions or concerns seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on HB640HD1 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up we have HB549HD1 relating to an early learning apprenticeship grant program and this one I just recommend technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Members are there any questions or concerns seeing then Vice Chair for the vote voting at HB549HD one chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any chairs voting no. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Roll chairs and we are.