House Standing Committee on Human Services & Homelessness

Good morning. We'll call this hearing to order for the committee on Human Services and Homelessness. It's Tuesday, March 11, 2025, 10:00 a.m. in Conference Room 329 at the State Capitol. My name is Lisa Martin. I have here Vice Chair Ikaika Olds. And we have members Takenouchi, Keohokapu-Lee Loy, and Amato with us today.

And we'll move right into our agenda, starting with SB 281SD1, relating to torture, which defines and prohibits the offense of torture and makes it a class A felony. And here to testify today, we have, first up, the Office of the Public Defender in person. Is the public defender here? Okay, maybe not.

Moving on to the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, city and county of Honolulu.

Good morning, Chair Martin, Vice Chair Olds, and members of the House Committee on Human Services and Homelessness. I'm Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, testifying in support of SB281 without comment on specific cases that have been reported in the media.

It is common knowledge that some murderers torture their victims to death and that sometimes those victims are children. And some may seek to assure you that murderers who torture children to death already face stiff sentences. You should reject that cold comfort for two reasons. First, victims of torture deserve protection from the law while they are still alive.

And second, the criminal law is not simply a mechanism for assigning penalties to lawbreakers. It's not a scoring system. Closure for victims and survivors. Accountability before the public demands as accurate an account as possible of what the defendant thought and did. Torture is qualitatively different from assault.

Homicides by torture are qualitatively different from other homicides, and the law should acknowledge that difference. Now, some may say that our law already offers adequate remedies, and that is not so. Our written testimony covers this exhaustively, and I'm happy to answer any questions from the committee regarding any aspect of this bill.

The starvation provision is essential, and we ask that the committee restore the original language. Our proposed language tracks the animal cruelty statute, and we believe that the protections for tortured humans should be at least as vigorous as those for tortured animals.

I'm joined here today by Prosecuting Attorney Steve Alm, HPD Chief Arthur Logan, HPD's Homicide and Strategic Enforcement Detail, and the prosecutor's Felony Domestic Violence and Child Abuse team. For us, victims of torture are not an abstract legal puzzle. We've seen their faces. We've heard their voices. We know their names.

And even should this bill pass, we must walk the lonely road of proving these cases to from crime to punishment. This bill takes the first step. The long struggle against the oppressor's wrong and the law's delay remains to be pursued. But give us the tools, and we will finish the job.

Thank you very much. The Office of Public Defender? Yeah.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is William Bento. I'm a member of the Office of the Public Defender. Thank you for recalling me. I just want to point out that we're not in opposition to what the purpose of this bill is and the statement that it makes.

However, we do have some concerns as far as the way the language in the bill is proposed. We do believe that we're going to have issues at a trial involving these cases, and I've outlined some of that in our testimony. The language needs to be clear as to what is being prohibited.

The language also needs to be narrowed in the area dealing with minors and vulnerable people, because the way it's written, it would allow for prosecution for things that are totally unintended. We've proposed some suggested language that could be inserted into the bill that could.

Could narrow that, and we believe that that would clearly express the legislature's intent in passing this bill. And we're available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Department of Prosecuting Attorney Steve Alm. Did you also want to speak?

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Martin, Vice Chair Olds. The prosecutor stands in strong support of the torture bill. We thank the Senate for passing it out. The one area we do have a problem with is the elimination of the torture, of the starvation part of it.

And there are other statutes, you know, and police do run into situations, as was said, to be blunt, if the kid has been killed, murdered, we can prosecute that right now. But if they've been starved right now and they haven't been hit and they don't have bruises on them, we may have a real hard time charging them.

You know, we can try to. We look at endangering the welfare of a minor. That's a misdemeanor. And the public defenders are free to bring motions for insufficiency of the evidence, as they are free to do that in every case. And how often does that happen? Never. So, we think this is clear.

We've been dealing with this, with the cruelty to animals statute for decades. So we appreciate the effort. We just would like to try to make sure the starvation part of it is put on there. I know for members of the public, they have a hard time believing that people do this to their kids.

Or to foster kids or people in their care. We see it, unfortunately, too often. Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming today. Next up, we have the Honolulu Police Department in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. I'm Captain Vince Legaspi from the Criminal Investigation Division of the Honolulu, Honolulu Police Department. HCPD strongly supports Senate Bill 281 relating to torture. We stand by our written testimony, and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much for coming.

Thank you.

Then we have some late signups. Are these in person or on Zoom? In person. Okay. We have also Erica Candelario. Is Erica here?

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Erika Candelario, and I'm the team captain of the Domestic Violence Felony Team and Child Abuse team at the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney here in Honolulu. I am testifying in strong support of SB281.

We, alongside HPD's Homicide and Strategic Enforcement Detail, all of whom you see here, are the collaborative team that prosecutes many, many of these child torture cases. These cases are, unfortunately, not as rare as you may think. They are also extremely difficult to investigate and bring forth charges.

They require hundreds of hours of investigation, sifting through digital evidence, conducting interviews, and obtaining medical information. From our collaboration with experts such as the Behavioral Analysis Unit of the FBI, we have actually learned as of late a lot about child torturers.

We now know that they have a specific psychology which sets them apart from the average perpetrator of child abuse. They are what are called non sexual sadists or everyday sadists, who often have the dark triad of personality disorders, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism.

To put it succinctly, they are motivated, even determined, if you will, to humiliate, break, and destroy the will of their child victims. They are often willing to expend extreme time, money, and effort to create environments and conditions specifically designed to do so. They are highly manipulative and extremely skilled at evading detection.

This psychopathology creates a complex web of crimes that are not so easily categorized by our current laws. Starvation is a type of torture that is predominant in these cases. And so we are also asking that the starvation provision be reinstated from the original bill. Starvation leaves no visible injuries and provides maximum amount of suffering to its victims.

It is important for me to tell you that these people who intentionally starve their children are not poverty-stricken. They are not withholding food and water because they just cannot afford it. These are people who have ample means and are choosing to intentionally starve and hurt these children.

Respectfully, please give us the tools to hold these perpetrators accountable. Without it, we are failing to protect children. Thank you. And I will be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Kaimi Mead.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Detective Kaiminaauao Mead, and I'm a detective with the Homicide and Strategic Enforcement Detail. We come here today in support of SB281 because of the profound effect these cases have had on us professionally and personally.

Over the years, I've investigated some of the worst child torture cases on the island. One thing that appears to be standard in child torture is the starvation of the child victims. Another thing that appears to be standard is that these perpetrators who starve children are not poor and are not without means to feed.

These are people with more than enough resources, but most of them are using the withholding of food because they want to break the will and spirit of the child. Starvation is an effective tool for perpetrators because it creates minimal visible injury and maximum suffering.

Children who are starved often go overlooked by service providers because the perpetrators themselves appear to be healthy, and the homes appear to be filled with food. These children, to the naked eye, may just appear to be underweight or lean, but in truth, they are wasting away.

The current statutory schemes in place are not sufficient for instances where children are starved. Children who are starved will all respond differently based on their own body compositions and fat stores. This can make it difficult to find charges that fit because no two children are alike, and no two responses by children's bodies may be alike.

The result, however, is the same. Maximum suffering with minimum visible evidence other than the eventual death of the child. We stand here before you today in strong support of SB281 and to request a reinstating of the starvation language. We need this language to hold perpetrators accountable who do the unthinkable to children.

Without this language, those who intentionally and knowingly starve children despite having food in their house and the means to provide, will be able to get away with the worst crimes imaginable. We are here today because we are the last line of resistance and defense to these perpetrators and all the investigators of these cases.

We humbly ask you to give us the tools we need. The laws we need to be successful to hold these perpetrators accountable.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Deena Thoemmes.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. I'm Lieutenant Deena Thoemmes of the Homicide and Strategic Enforcement Detail. HPD supports Senate Bill. As you can see, my detail is here in strong support of the bill.

This bill directly addresses torture of children and vulnerable persons, a category of abuse that goes beyond what is typically encountered in child maltreatment cases. In my 16 years as a homicide lieutenant and detective, I investigated some of the most horrific crimes imaginable. Child torture is one of them. It is uniquely insidious.

It is gradual but with harmful effects. Unlike general child abuse, it is calculated, systematic, and designed to break the victim's will entirely. It is deliberate act of control and cruelty, leaving children in a constant state of pain and fear

Starvation is one of the most inhumane forms of child torture, causing extreme physical suffering, long-term developmental damage, and even death. Survivors, when rescued, are often so disoriented and psychologically shattered that they struggle to recall or describe the sequence of events. This is the precise effect of torture. It erodes identity, confuses, and ensures total compliance.

To actually see this happen, the public doesn't really believe it, but for us, we see it. So this bill is very important to pass to protect the children. A major challenge we face in prosecuting these crimes is that many of the most severe torture tactics, such as force holds and starvation, leave minimal visible physical injuries.

These methods are not the result of neglect or poverty, but are intentional tools of domination. In 100 percent of these cases we have investigated and charged, the perpetrators had the means to feed and care for the children. Instead, they chose not to as a method of control and suffering.

However, our current statutory framework does not adequately capture these acts, making it difficult to hold these offenders accountable. Like Erika Candelario said, through our collaboration with the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit and other experts, we know that these perpetrators are classified as non sexual sadists. They are not struggling parents.

They are individuals who take pleasure in the suffering of children. They are highly manipulative, skilled at deceiving systems, and often force surviving children to participate in covering up their crimes. Without a specific statute addressing torture of children and vulnerable persons, our ability to prosecute and protect these children is severely hindered.

Passing this bill will provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to intervene effectively and hold these perpetrators fully accountable. It is our duty to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Right now, without this law, we are failing them.

We need this legislation to ensure that those who commit these acts are fully prosecuted and that no child endures this suffering without justice. I urge you to take immediate action and support this bill. It is time to act decisively and aggressively to close these gaps and bring justice to the victims.

I can answer any questions if you have.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Next up, we have Justin Higa.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Justin Higa. I'm a detective with the whole police department. I'm currently assigned to the department's homicide detail. I'm here today to show strong support for Senate Bill 21 relating to torture.

In 2024, I was a lead investigator for the following case: State of Hawaii versus Brandy Blas, Thomas Blas, and Debra Geron. This case was charged in February of 2024 where the suspects are currently awaiting trial for the murder of a 10 year old child.

As a homicide detective, I have assisted in investigating multiple cases involving the torture of children. These investigations, for lack of better words, are some of the most horrifying things that a person could experience.

They involve the use of force holds, starving, binding beatings, and the burning of children at the hands of the people that they should trust the most; their parents or legal guardians. Starvation is often used as a means of punishment, control, or neglect, and it can result in severe malnutrition, developmental delays, organ failure, and even death.

One of the things that we have seen as investigators is that there is a gaping hole in the law regarding some of the torture that children are subjected to, specifically with regards to starvation, fluid restriction, forced exercise, subjected to unsanitary conditions such that they are in their own feces and placed in force holds.

To be clear, these are not instances where a child is denied dessert, told to clean a bathroom as a chore, or left in a dirty diaper for five minutes too long.

These are instances where a child has been systematically deprived of food, water, basic necessities, beaten, and tortured because a parent or legal guardian has decided to do so. The current laws that we have are not enough.

The torture bill will adjoin a hole in the Hawaii Revised Statutes that will allow investigators like myself to hold sadists who torture children accountable for their own actions. The homicide detail of HPD remains committed to its mission of obtaining justice and being the voices for all victims, which include our most vulnerable and our keiki.

As law enforcement who are on the front lines, we daily see the horror that these cases inflict on the children of our community. Thus, we humbly ask for Senate Bill 21 to be passed. I thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Okay, next up on Zoom, we have Mr. Billionaire. Not responding.

I'm here, I'm here. Hold on. Check, check. Hello?

Yeah, we hear you. Go ahead.

Okay, great. Thank you. I'm glad the room is so full. What's up, Steve-o? All the cops are inside. Aloha, chairs, and everybody. So I am support of this bill. You guys know it's on the news. But since we're going to be talking about a lot of the human trafficking, sex trafficking stuff next on the agenda.

And we got one minute to win all your hearts and do something about this. Of course, we support this bill. But because of the Maui chief of police who's dirty, she's 100 percent guilty for doing all the P. Diddy GHB baby oil stuff going down there.

But you also have the big island chief of police who said there's no sex trafficking, when Julie Harding confronted the mayor during a town hall last week, we all know that that's a lie. There's human traffic going on the Castle Ocean View. It's heading to the cartel Sinaloa.

Excuse me, Mr. Billionaire, can you confine yourself to this bill, please?

Yes, I'm talking about the same bill with torture because it's all related because this is Sunny Lehua Kalua case we're doing with Ariel Sellers. Isabella Kalua who was tortured in the dog cage. They chopped off the body parts, put the body parts in acid, and dumped her in the bathrooms.

And when they're already dead, we cannot revive people like you see on the news. But we definitely have to do something about this. Like the cops said, we have to do something to prosecute these evil villains.

The drugs and stuff is being smuggled through the ports. And we got all the prosecution there and we need your guys' help and support so we can nail these evil villains and help do right for our children. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this matter? Please come up.

Aloha.

Shereen Balles.

I didn't my video.

Thank you so much for hearing this bill. I am in extremely strong support of this bill. I am a survivor. I was a victim of torture by my ex-husband. My children were also.

Please go ahead. Sorry about that.

So this bill will help a lot of people in this world that have going, that are going through this, that are living in fear like I was. When I listen to the people talk, I feel like I'm at fault for not taking care of my children. But we were living in fear. Tortured. I mean tortured.

Beaten up to the point where you cannot breathe. But I had to be there for my children. So I kept on living, and I kept on putting myself in place in the middle of the children.

But you know, when the police came the first time they told me, zero, you got to take your child to CPS if you don't. If you don't change your ways to him. They said, if you don't change your ways, we're going to take him, we're going to take her.

Ultimately, he said he was going to change his ways, and he never did. He is a narcissist, gaslighter, all the things you can think of. Despicable. I'm not here to bash him, though. I'm here to tell you that it's a mental health issue.

We need to work on this, and we need to get the resources to help these people who have those mental health issues. People like me who have survived almost death to save the children in my family, including the four children that are alive today.

I was unable to save the 13 children that he punched in my belly or told me to go get an abortion for because he didn't want to have the children. I have to be brave for all the people out there who cannot speak. And I'm here to tell you guys, we live in fear.

We cannot rely on the police right now because they walk away from it. They don't have really a way to help us, because if he goes to jail tomorrow, he's going to come right back into the home the next day because that's what happens. So please, please pass this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you very much for being here today. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Please come up.

Good morning, Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds. Representatives, my name is Tiffany Kaeo. I'm the Division Chief for the Family Prosecution Unit at the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important bill, SB 281, a timely subject matter.

As the Division Chief of the Family Prosecution Division, I prosecute and oversee prosecutors who handle domestic violence and child abuse cases. As one of the lead prosecutors on cases involving child abuse and child torture, the cases we see demonstrate a need for this statute.

I don't want to repeat anything my colleagues have already said before this committee so eloquently about the importance of this bill. But I do want to point out that while we have the ability to hold offenders accountable when a child dies, this bill would solve the problem of when a child survives the horrific experience of child torture.

And currently, there is no comparable statute that accounts for or the offender's state of mind and the acts suffered by the child. This bill would seek to remedy the gap in the statutes by reinserting the language regarding deprivation of food and water.

Again, we address the gap in the statute and account for another pervasive form of torture that goes unnoticed and unaddressed, if not specifically written into the statute. The investigations in these cases are long and drawn out because they require the consultation of multiple disciplines. Child welfare services, medical professionals, social service providers, and law enforcement.

It takes a whole team. It speaks to the thoroughness and the care that each investigation requires before any charge can even be brought. Because each child is unique, each investigation is unique. Given that, plus the language that has been carefully crafted in this bill, this bill could hold offenders accountable.

It holds accountable those who torture our most vulnerable members of the community. And we strongly urge this committee amend the language of SB 281 by reinserting the language originally proposed for this bill prohibiting the deprivation of food and water, and passing SB 281. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Thanks for being here today. On Zoom, we have a late testifier. Moanike'ala? Please go ahead. We can hear you.

Okay, thank you. Aloha, everyone. My name is Moanike'ala Katherine Tua'au Muna. I am the former sex assault forensic examiner for Hawaii County. I am testifying in support of SB 281. I appreciate the testimony that has already been given, and I wanted to name that SB 281 defines CWS investigative caseworker Teresa Witten Huntzinger.

CWS Teresa Witten Huntzinger has been retaliating against covering up sexual and physical violence against and torturing my nephew since October 2017. I am also a survivor of child sexual violence and the reason that I'm speaking up. So I'm trying to leave no stone unturned for my nephew.

I think he is in imminent harm and no one is willing to take a look at his case because she is law enforcement. There is pervasive physical and psychological control being exercised over my nephew by Teresa.

And my hope is that all victims, even those that are known to child welfare services or that are ward of the state, will be given an opportunity to be free of this kind of harm. I think that's all I have to say. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We also had testimony and support from from the County of Hawaii Office of Prosecuting Attorney from Hawaii Island Republican Women, Kulia I Ka Nu'u Outreach Services, and 10 individuals. Members, are there any questions for our testifiers? I'm seeing none. I heard you loud and clear. And.

And while it wasn't necessary for everyone to come today because I already shared your opinion, I think the strength of it is quite impressive. It's made a huge impression on me how important this is to our law enforcement community and we will try to get it done. Thank you very much.

Moving on to our next measure, SB 292 SD1 relating to sexual exploitation. This establishes safe harbor protections for survivors of sexual exploitation who seek medical or law enforcement assistance. And this is a bill that we have heard previously. We heard the companion to this and passed it. So we have first up to testify the prosecuting attorney of sitting 10.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. Last year there was a similar bill that was SB3036, I think, that had a similar provision. But that earlier version would create some equal protection problems because of the differential way that it treated commercial sex buyers.

Johns in Waikiki versus those on throughout the rest of the state. That provision is no longer in place. Our Department stands in support of this. We do believe that survivors of sex trafficking should have access to law enforcement and to medical resources safe from the fear of prosecution.

And if the law will recognize that and provide that safe harbor, we are in support of it. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have in support Tagnawa from Mutual Aid. No, Nadine. No, not here. Okay. And Mr. [unintelligible], are you still there on Zoom?

I'm here, I'm here. I can push the video now. Okay, it's working. You can see me Great. Wonderful. Yes. I am in full support of this bill to handle sex trafficking, all the exploitation of children. You know, from the previous testimony, a lot of stuff has hit the mainstream.

But when you talk to survivors, they're afraid of retaliation. They can't trust all the cops because they feel like some of the vice people are dirty. If you go to Big Island, Hilo Division 1 does not talk to Hilo Division 2 because we have family Members who are cops. And a lot of stuff goes down.

You can talk to Kurt Favela, they can tell you the stories about the food land. A lot of stuff that's going down with drugs and trafficking and smuggling. And I highly encourage you guys get control of the ports.

I know there's going to be bills about this, but when you talk to who controls the ports where they're smuggling all the drugs, fireworks, legal contraband, humans, X, Y and Z. It's a state job, meaning Dole, Department of Law Enforcement. Mike Lambert is supposed to be in charge of this, but he needs manpower, resources and appropriations.

He can't do this alone. To infiltrate the Matson, the. All the unions and stuff like that to deal with the Merchant Marine Jones Act. So we're going to need a lot of your support and you guess, add whatever amendments you need, but we're definitely going to need some real manpower and support. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Please come up. Well, this is the one about safe harbors for sex workers. Okay. Seeing none.

We also had testimony and support in writing from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, from IMUA Alliance, from Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, from Rights for Girls Sex Worker Outreach Project Hawaii, and two individuals Members. Are there any questions for our testifiers? Seeing none, we will move on to our next measure.

This one is SB 295 SD1, relating to domestic abuse Protective orders. This increases the penalties for violations of a temporary restraining order in order for protection. It clarifies that when. When one has been violated, the other one is a second offense and increases the penalties. And first up, we have. Bear with me.

Okay, first up, we have the Office of the Public Defender.

Good morning once again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, William Bento of the Public Defender's Office. Our main concerns with this bill deal with the mandatory jail sentence.

And we do understand that there is a belief that that will deter people from committing these offenses, but there really has not been any basis or evidence that this in fact does work. Currently, judges can sentence a person to up to a year in jail on a violation of this.

And our position is that the judge is the best person to be able to make a determination as to whether a jail sentence is necessary or not.

We also want to bring to the Committee's attention that there is a big difference between cases where there are stay away orders or TROs for a domestic violence situation versus other situations.

We see this all the time in our work where family Members may get a TRO or a stay away order because the person they're trying to keep from coming back to the family home has a mental illness issue or substance abuse issue has become a bother.

They wish to utilize the criminal justice system as a means of getting that person help and to take that person and then put them into five days of jail or 30 or 45 days of jail with subsequent convictions. Because. Because sometimes we see this happening repeatedly.

Now, with that said, we understand that for people who are getting the tro, that can be very bothersome, troubling, and even fearful. Make them fearful about what could happen. But it would be best to leave it to the judge.

With all the parties concerned, the prosecutors are there to advocate as well, to determine if a jail sentence is necessary and how long that should be. Jail terms upset not just the person's liberty, but affects their job, can affect their ability to pay for their housing. So they lose their job, they lose their housing.

That economic stability is greatly damaged, and sometimes it's very difficult for them to get back on their feet. The last thing I want to say is this. In our state, we have two different types of jail terms deal determinant and indeterminate jail terms. Indeterminate jail terms are those usually for felony offenses.

The parole board decides how long a person stays in custody. Determinant sentencing, as is discussed in this bill, means that the person will serve all five days, all 30 days, all 45 days.

There's no mechanism by which you can get them released once they're given this mandatory jail sentence, short of any sort of medical emergency or illness or things of that nature. So they're going to serve this amount of time. So I just asked the Committee to think about those things before considering the passage of this bill.

Thank you very much.

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

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. In our legislative package, we submitted a similar bill that kept the current mandatory minimums in place. We don't have, in principle, any objection to extending those to five days, as opposed to two.

But the two important provisions of this bill that we would urge this Committee to keep are first, that it keeps the violations consistent across temporary restraining orders and subsequent protective orders.

Under the current law, there's almost a refresh and redo once a protective order comes in place, which doesn't make sense because a protective order is based on a hearing where a judge has made findings or where at least there's been some sort of opportunity for the respondent to give their side of the story.

The second important provision that's important here is that it removes the distinction between non domestic and domestic abuse.

We believe that a better way to handle these cases is to charge the separate crimes that would constitute domestic abuse because that gives a much more accurate record as opposed to the current hybrid method, which then requires us to also track the domestic versus non domestic abuse history if we're charging subsequent offenses.

And sometimes that can be difficult if we don't have access to those records. Many of these cases are charged between 11pm and 3 in the morning, which also happens to be the times that the judiciary's information management system is down.

And if all of the offenses have occurred in Honolulu, that's not much of a problem for our office. But if we have to look for a court record from the neighbor islands, then that can frustrate and thwart effective prosecution of these cases. So we urge this Committee to support this bill and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Chair, Committee Members. I'm Angelina Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. We are the Association of Domestic Violence Programs and we represent 25 programs statewide. And we're here in strong support of this measure. And we've heard a lot from the prosecutors and the public defenders.

But I want to tell you what my experience is like. By the time I get a survivor that calls me, my team, our office, they are fed up with this system. They're fed up with the prosecution, they're fed up with the law enforcement action. Because at this point, the protection order has just become another piece of paper.

All of our programs, all of our websites, all of our service providers, all of from, you know, those providing public benefits, child welfare cases, they look at what we do and what a survivor does about protection orders.

As a matter of fact, the judiciary's own data indicates that There are over 4700 petitions filed in the last year of their Data and about 121300 of those are granted. But when it comes to actual convictions for incarceration, 13 for TRO violations, fines, 18, what are we telling our survivors of domestic violence in this community?

And I also want to point out that it's so important to make the distinction between physical and non physical violence. We changed the definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control, specifically to include those non physical offenses, but because we know that those are as terrorizing for survivors as a physical offense.

And the fact that not all survivors are at the opposite end of physical abuse. As a matter of fact, our own data and research has shown that 20% of those that we surveyed have experienced coercive control, as opposed to 18% who have experienced physical abuse and intimidation.

And then finally, when it comes to increasing times, minimum sentencing and penalties, there's actually data that shows when you look at something in combination with other types of services, including our domestic violence intervention, it's an opportunity to work with those high risk cases in our community. And that's where these increases are the most effective.

There's gonna be a lot of cases where somebody accidentally, maybe will violate a protection order. But our prosecutors and our survivors also know that there are people in the community who are doing this deliberately. And these are high risk cases. And we need to be able to capture that gap. I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Monique Ibarra, Domestic Violence Action Center. Is Monique here?

Aloha. And good morning. Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds and Members of the Committee. My name is Monique Ibarra and I'm the CEO for the Domestic Violence Action Center. DVAC supports SB 295 SD1. We support strong policies and legislation that ensure effectiveness and reliability of protective orders for survivors of domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a pervasive issue that affects individuals, families and communities. And it is crucial that survivors are provided with the tools and resources they need to feel safe and supported in rebuilding their lives. One of the most important safety plan tools available to survivors is a protective order against domestic violence.

This can provide immediate relief by restricting the abusers access to victims and their family. It is essential that we create an environment where survivors feel confident that these orders will be enforced and that they will be supported by the legal system.

Without this trust, many survivors may hesitate to pursue a protective order, Fearing that the legal system will not take their safety seriously or that the abuser will face no real consequences if they violate the order.

For these orders to be effective, survivors must have confidence with law enforcement that they'll respond appropriate to violations and and that courts will take matters seriously and that there will be real accountability for those who violate these orders.

Trusting in a protective order gives survivors the courage to seek justice and the peace of mind that they are no longer alone in this fight for safety.

This bill will improve survivors faith in the judicial process and protection orders to demonstrate that this would be more than just a piece of paper as well as hold abusers accountable for the harm they caused their victims, families and communities at large.

The bill will allow flexibility in the statute to address abuse amongst family Members and intimate partner violence, prevent the weaponization of the statute against victims of domestic violence, and will ensure a smooth and expeditious judicial process. Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

Thank you very much. Next up we have is Shereen Balles here.

There is at least one news report a week, if not more that we don't hear about in the news.

My story I'm not here to bash my abuser, but I am here to tell you that he told me and my four kamalii that if we ever spoke about what he does to us or if he ended up in jail because we said something that he would come out of jail, come after us and kill us, put us on the news and make us a statistic.

I must take a moment to remember my 13 unborn children of which I was abused so badly and I lost all of them and the many in this community, we need to remember them who we've lost. This man had severe mental health issues, bipolar, dissociative and had schizophrenia. I say all this before.

I say that I strongly support this bill. In reference to public defender's comment, I remember you. I remember you mentioning when you were on his side that day that the resources for the people who have mental health issues in this jail were unavailable and non existent. I'm not sure about now.

I got denied twice when I went to the TRO office in Kapolei. A DVAC helper was there and assisted me in getting a 30 year TRO against my abuser. This is not a TRO though.

It's a protective order that a judge helped me with because on my TRO I needed to mention that I was in imminent danger and I believed that my life was going to get lost if I continue to see if there was a he was there. It took her hearing my story to help me.

What I found out is some people will use the TRO as a weapon when getting A divorce or something went wrong in their relationship. That's why people who tro's and orders of protection are meant for are getting denied. And for the abusers, brah, like she said, like she said, it's just a piece of paper.

I represent the 1% of women and men who don't return to their abuser. That's what I was told that day. 99% of the population in our community returns to their abuser out of fear and or lack of resources. What I share with a majority of them is I had hoped that my abuser would change and be better.

Take a look around the room. How many of you can raise your hand and say that you know someone who's a survivor of domestic violence? Statistics are 1 in 3 women. 1 in 4 men in Hawaii have experienced sexual violence, physical violence and or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

For every 100 people that reported intimate partner violence, 65 were women. Each year in Hawaii, close to 600 children, zero to five are confirmed to be victims of child abuse and neglect. The large group of child abuse and neglect victims were less than a year old. That's 15.5% perpetrators. 90.2%. The cases were parents.

Approximately 4 million referrals go. 4 million referrals for alleged maltreatment are made to child protective agencies each year. Researchers have estimated that between 3.3 million and 10 million children are exposed to adult domestic violence each year. I wish I could do this right now, but I would love to drop the mic. Mahalo. Thank you.

On Zoom, we have Hai Haini. Please go ahead.

Hi. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay. Aloha [unintelligible] SB 295. Hello, everyone. My name is Hai Haiani. I'm here to testify in support of bill SB. I'm here today to urge you to support and pass SB 295, a bill that will strengthen protections against domestic violence.

Domestic violence has a devastating impact, leaving scars that run deep and affecting not only the direct victim, but also their families and communities. The loss of my cousin Teresa to this senseless violence is a pain I carry every day. It's a pain compounded by my own experience with domestic abuse. Teresa had so much ahead of her.

She was a mother, a daughter, a granddaughter, a sister, a cousin and a niece. A vibrant, loved individual whose life was tragically cut short. She was granted a temporary restraining order, a a supposed shield of protection. Yet not long after, her husband murdered her in front of their own daughter.

This horrific act followed weeks of stalking, mental and emotional abuse directed at Teresa and her children. Her cries for help were ignored. Despite her repeated pleas, law enforcement failed to intervene, silencing and dismissing her concerns. The TRO meant to protect Teresa ultimately failed her. This highlights a critical flaw in the system that SB 295 can help address.

It's been one year and almost two months that she was taken from us. A stark reminder of the urgent need for change. No one should have to endure the fear, manipulation and physical harm that comes with domestic abuse. And no one should be turned away when they desperately seek help.

That's why I'm so passionate about supporting and passing this bill. This bill represents a crucial step towards creating a safer environment for victims of domestic violence. By implementing harsher punishments for offenders, SB 295 aims to deter these crimes and hold abusers accountable for their actions.

We can't afford to lose any more loved ones to domestic violence, especially when it intersects with gun violence, as it so often does. This bill offers a chance to Prevent such tragedies. SB 295 increases penalties will send a strong message that our community will not tolerate this behavior. Beyond punishment.

SB 295 is about creating a safe space for victims. It's about giving them a voice when they feel they have none. My own experience with the legal system. I'm so sorry.

That's okay. We understand your strong support and I appreciate you testifying with us today. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Beyond punishment, SB 295 is about creating a safe space for victims. It's about giving them a voice when they feel they have none. My own experience with the legal system highlighted the urgent need for change.

Despite presenting ample evidence, photos, text messages, emails documenting the abuse I suffered, my ex husband continued to stalk me, harass me, and mentally and emotionally abuse me even after I was denied a tro. And even with this evidence, I was not granted one. The judge dismissed my claim, seemingly swayed by his lawyer's unfounded accusations of mental illness.

This is unacceptable. We need judges who practice discernment and officers who uphold and enforce the laws designed to protect victims. Like the TRO that fell Teresa, SB 295 can help ensure that justice is served and that victims are heard. SB 295's provisions for victim support services are crucial for this. Passing SB 295 will send a powerful message.

Our community does not condone domestic violence. It will send a message that every violator will be held accountable and punished to the full extent of the law. This bill isn't just about legislation. It's about creating a culture where domestic violence is no longer tolerated and where victims are supported and empowered.

It's a step towards healing, justice and preventing further loss. So I implore you, for Teresa, for myself and for all victims of domestic violence, please support and pass SB 295. Lives depend on it. Mayai Y. Thank you all for your time in allowing us to speak and be heard.

Mahalo, Lucita. Next we have the judiciary State of Hawaii with comments. Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks with written testimony and support and 4 Indiv 40 individuals with written testimony and support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on on this measure? Yes, please. I'm here. It's Lucita Lupita. Hold on. We have some people in person.

Good morning again, Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds, Representatives. Tiffany Kaeo from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on a Bill that means a lot to so many survivors in our community.

As a Division Chief for the Family Prosecution Division and having been a DV prosecutor for the last 14 years, when the Prosecutor's Office has a similar, had a similar Bill, our intent was to distinct to take away the distinction between non domestic abuse and domestic abuse was so that we would take away that distinction that really sort of trivialized the distinction between non domestic abuse and domestic abuse, because for the way we see it, those distinctions trivialize the violation.

For, for a victim, a menacing glance across a store is the same as having your window smashed in, right? Each act of violence or each look for someone who suffered abuse is equally impactful. It doesn't matter where it occurred or how it occurred. Each has an impact on your mind and your body and triggers a response.

And so we wanted to make sure that each offense that occurs was given the same level of appreciation for both the court, for us as prosecutors and law enforcement. And so when we looked at making proposals like that, we were considering that in our mind.

And it is not to take away from the data that's being collected or to take away from any of the progress that's being made, but really to highlight the importance of every single single incident that a victim faces when he or she is being faced with an incident of stalking or harassment.

And so for us, this Bill is important for all survivors and for us as prosecutors to holding offenders accountable.

And we faced every day, we see it more often now where we have cases of de minimis hearings, where we get charges or motions being brought, where defense attorneys will say that, "oh, well, it was just hearing, he was across the street and he looked at her." And that really diminishes the value of a restraining order.

And we don't want that for victims. And we are prepared to go to court and to fight against these. And that in our mind trivializes the value of that paper. And so we are in strong support of SB 295, and we ask the Committee to pass this Bill.

We are in support of any measure that, you know, provides deterrence to those who commit acts of domestic violence. So we are not opposed to increasing the penalties. The reality of what we see is the court gives out minimal sentences as it is generally speaking.

And so this would give the courts an opportunity to really consider what is an appropriate punishment for those who not only violate the rights - what victims expect to feel safe, the safety of a victim, but also the court's orders. An order by a judge that this person who is out and about in our community could not follow.

And so for those things, we asked this Committee to pass Senate Bill 295. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Come on up.

Aloha Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds, and Member of the Committee. My name is Christine Denton and I'm Special Counsel to the Prosecuting Attorney for the City and County of Honolulu. Before I took this job, I was actually a deputy in the domestic violence misdemeanor division under the supervision of Ms. Kaeo.

I just wanted to make a couple comments as I sat here and listened to a lot of the testimony.

And I want to re emphasize that when a victim, whether it's a woman or a parent, takes that extraordinary step, courage to actually walk into Kapolei Family Court, fill out the paperwork all by themselves many times that's a huge step. And it comes after many, many months, days, sometimes years of abuse, ridicule, torture in some cases.

And so I just wanted to impress that that first step, there's actually a judge there that looks over everything and makes the order or denies the order. And it is unfortunate that there are people who are not using this system the way it was intended to be used and that victims are really hurting.

But I also wanted to talk to the victims I've dealt with and I have had, I want to say, about 10 or 15 parents on my caseload. And the parents I've had on my caseload are usually 55 and up.

And they had to take the hard, hard step of getting a restraining order against an adult child who has damaged their property, hit them, stolen from them, refused to listen to them when they say, I can't help you anymore. And this restraining order, whether it's a TRO or an order of protection, that took a lot of courage.

Can you imagine as a parent having to go to court and tell a judge I can't be protected from my own child? The hardest part comes when they have the courage then to make the phone call because the defendant decides they're just going to walk into the house because that paper doesn't mean anything.

And the cops come and they pick them up and then the defendant gets released. We're the ones that have to make the phone call. I had to make a phone call to an 83 year old woman and tell her, lock up the house because your son got released. This Bill is super important. Those five days are important.

Getting rid of that distinction. As Ms. Kael said, harm is harm. It doesn't matter if it was just a look or knocking on the door and walking in, taking food out of the refrigerator, because it's still harm to that victim. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Is there somebody on Zoom still wishing to testify?

Hi, it's Lucita.

Lucita. Can you give us your last name for the record?

Ani-Nihoa.

Go ahead, please.

Hi. Thank you. Good morning. Can you hear me? Okay. Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds and Members of the Committee. My name is Lucita. I am the mother of Theresa Cachuela, who was shot and killed by her husband on December 22, 2023. I strongly support this Bill.

Sorry, I was listening to everybody else's testimonies and it kind of got me emotional. I strongly support this Bill because with the increased time from 48 hours to 5 days, it will give the victim time to find the right resources that align with their needs.

Now, there is not really a program that would meet everyone with a specific need. For example, housing, child care, financial stability, mental health counseling. Theresa was discouraged from applying for state financial assistance by employees at the Department of Human Services, which is why she depended on her husband for financial support.

She mentioned that a worker at the welfare office told her that if they find out if she's lying and she's still with her husband, she could be penalized. She got scared. She did not accept the $1,700 food stamps for which she was approved.

She also had a challenging time finding a therapist, waiting months for an appointment only for the therapist to say he could not help her. After her first session with them. I was and am angry with how they dismissed her cry for help. She needed help and they shut her down with the comments that were made.

My daughter did not deserve to die, as with so many others who sought help. I humbly ask that we step up penalties for violating temporary restraining orders with increased fines, minimum sentences, and court ordered counseling. I support increased fines to hopefully assist with more funding and other support for survivors struggling to lead their abusers.

The abuse Theresa suffered at the hands of her husband was not physical but psychological, which I strongly support in court ordered counseling and mental health assessments. I also think there should be more training for officers to take these types of police calls seriously.

Theresa did call 911 for help, but was turned away, including police officers asking her if. If she really wanted to file a police report against her husband. She was, like I said, discouraged at every corner, even with, you know, like, I believe, I believe that if the police would pick her up - pick him up - right.

So he came up. The court was on Wednesday. I guess it was a custody visitation. My daughter told me that it was supposed to be a TRO court hearing, but supposedly it wasn't a TRO court.

Lucita, can I ask you to wrap up? Just because we are going into session in less than an hour and we have a lot of bills to hear.

Okay. So we want everybody to remember her legacy, how Teresa was there for so many people, how she fought for her own life, how the resources and law enforcement failed her. Please ensure the safety of the current and future victims of any type of violence. This rests upon our lawmakers, like yourselves to improve on our justice system.

Let us encourage hope and healing in our communities and eventually in our state. Mahalo and thank you for allowing me to submit my testimony.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none, we had...I already talked about the other testifiers. So, Members, do you have any questions for our testifiers? I have a question for the prosecuting office.

So the one issue in this Bill that is separating domestic versus non domestic and keeping them together. We've heard two different lines of reasoning here today. And you're saying it's harder for you to prosecute your case to get the data you need when they are not separate.

Yes. So I focused on the efficiency argument and the Division Chief focused on the sort of the moral nexus here. Right. Which is that once somebody has a protective order, oftentimes what can look like very minimal violations have to be read in the context of the abusive relationship.

So there's a petition for the protective order that usually requires this person to enumerate prior acts of abuse. Right. None of that is likely to be introduced in court at trial. What the jury will hear is about the violation itself.

I did a case once where the only thing that the jury heard was that the defendant drove by and said some swear words to the respondent. What they didn't know is that he had been jailed before on this charge, violating the protective order. And he - from OCCC. We had the tapes.

He called over 100 times threatening to kill her daughter. Never prosecuted for that. Jury never heard about it. What looked like a very minimal violation, non domestic abuse. Because he didn't do anything. But we had a good jury there. They convicted him. They could, they could tell. But that isn't every case.

So I'm not a Lawyer. So I didn't really get your point. So how would having them say separate allow you to show that evidence of past history?

Right, so, so it's not, it's not about the evidence of past history, but it's about the fact that it's characterized as a non domestic abuse order versus domestic abuse, which makes it appear as if because the person didn't commit a crime while they were - a separate crime - while they were violating the order, it somehow is less important. I think that's the point that the Division Chief was making.

Okay, I have a separate question. Our Office of the Public Defender was talking about the mandatory minimums, but in this Bill for people that might have violated the TRO because of mental health problems, there is, there is an exemption where the court can suspend the jail sentence in order to do drug, alcohol programs, other court ordered assessments. Is that not correct?

So I believe there's a suspension provision. We think that eliminating the domestic non domestic abuse basically makes that suspension provision obsolete.

I will say for the question of mental health, in cases where the person's violation, and sometimes this happens, the violation of the protective order is because of a mental condition, there is what's called a 704 proceeding which is available in all criminal cases.

Which is that if the person by virtue of a mental condition either is not fit to proceed to trial or could not be held penally responsible, then that person is essentially put for medical and psychiatric treatment and that's how the law would handle those sort of cases.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We're going to move on to our next measure, SB 1028, SD 1, relating to youth fees and fines, which allows community service in place of fines to consider... Sorry, allows the court to substitute community service for fines for youth. And first up, we have in support the Office of the Public Defender. Thank you very much for that. ACLU Hawaii in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. We'll largely stand on our written testimony. Just want to highlight three key points. The first is that there's extensive research showing that fines and fees are not helpful in improving public safety. In fact, both fines and fees and fines and fees together have been shown through extensive research to increase recidivism, which is a threat to the public.

They've also found that fines and fees for youth don't serve the public and governments often spend more money trying to collect those fines and fees than actually the money they receive back. And finally, we want to highlight a 2023 report issued by the Department of Justice saying that youth should be presumed indigent and doing so would be in the interest of justice. And so just wanted to highlight those three things in our testimony in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Kat Brady from the Community... Is Kat... Oh, Kat was here. She's not here now, but she was in support. The Office of the Attorney General.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department just provides comments for Senate Bill 1028, SD 1. The Department takes no position whether community service should take place, take the place of assessments of fines and fees. However, we just point out in our testimony the potential title issue, and we'll be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have the Juvenile Justice State Advisory Council on Zoom. Not present. With comments. Oh no, that was in support. We have Debt Free Justice Hawaii on Zoom in support. Go ahead, Cameron.

Aloha Mai Kakou, Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds, and Committee Members. I'm Cameron Clark, Co-Coordinator of Debt Free Justice, the national campaign eliminate court ordered fines and fees against youth. On behalf of the Debt Free Justice Hawaii coalition of youth and community advocates, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on Senate Bill 1028, SD 1.

SB 1028 offers the Legislature a step towards debt free justice by providing community service as an alternative to fines that are currently mandatory in vehicular and traffic cases against minors. SB 1028 received unanimous votes in both Senate Judiciary and on the Senate Floor, reflecting the bipartisan calls to improve outcomes for youth in the justice system.

We stand on our written testimony and thank the Chair, Vice Chair, and Members for your support of House Bill 129, legislation we co-drafted to repeal youth fees and fines. We respectfully request that the Committee consider including provisions from HB 129 into Senate Bill 1028, specifically its provisions to discharge outstanding debt owed by youth and families.

SB 1028 scope could also be expanded beyond the Vehicles Code to ensure that community service is an available option for any fee or fine ordered against minors in Hawaii. We wish to offer brief comments in relation to other testimony submitted here. We thank the Attorney General for their comments and engagement on this issue.

The bill's title, quote, relating to youth fees and fines does not subject it to constitutional scrutiny. In their testimony, the Attorney General bolds the word and as if to indicate that this alone violates the Constitution. In 2013's Villon v. Marriott Hotel Services, the Supreme Court of Hawaii validated a bill relating to wages and tips of employees in the context of subject title requirements in Article 3, Section 14 of the Hawaii Constitution. The Supreme Court held, quote, to nullify legislation on the grounds that it was enacted in violation of the subject title requirements of the state Constitution.

The infraction must be plain, clear, manifest, and unmistakable. An infraction rising to this level is one in which the title tends to mislead or deceive the people or the lawmaking body as to the purpose or effect of the legislation or to conceal or obscure the same, unquote. The majority of states across the country, including Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, have taken action to achieve debt free justice for youth. We respectfully ask for your aye vote and remain available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Judith Clark on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Members. Excuse me. Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Judith Clark, Executive Director of Hawaii Youth Services Network. I did not submit written testimony, but I would like to say just a few words about this bill. When fines are the result of a violation for a young person, for a minor, it is the family that would normally actually come up with the money to pay the fine. This can create financial hardship for the family when they have to divert money from rent, food, utility bills, and other important expenses.

It also does not allow the young person to directly experience the consequences of their actions. Whereas community service, they are directly providing restitution for their offense and it has the potential for them to develop new career and other interests, to develop a desire for continued community service, and gives them the satisfaction of knowing that they are actively contributing back to their communities. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Judith. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in support or in opposition to this measure? Okay, keep it brief. Come on up.

Aloha. Angela Melody Young, CARES, in strong support. So I was asked to submit testimony from the University of California from Berkeley. In these past few years, I really want to just support this bill. Unjust youth fees and fines in juvenile correction systems have disproportionate effects by hurting low income households and it contributes to the racial and wealth disparities even more by hurting low income neighborhoods.

So poor neighborhoods and communities impacted by disadvantaged mental health outcomes, lack of access to financial resources and assets, have a harder time with upward mobility, securing a better job or moving up the ladder in society and in a career because of economic inequity, and to punish them even more is not fair.

So this bill cracks down on vehicular offenses and fines and fees relating to youth and juvenile offenders, teens and minors who are disproportionately affected by an unjust court system to inconsequentially punish teens who probably just don't know how to drive and what constitutes as an offense.

So, you know, the teens, they probably watch like Fast and the Furious, racing shows. So the kids just copy what is shown on television. So instead of very harsh punishment, like I feel like we're like in the slave era. We should focus on non-punitive disciplinary actions, right? Maybe fun driving schools. And I will wrap up. In Kapolei In Hawaii, youth facing traffic infractions or other vehicle related issues incurring a fee and fine can go online to pay on E-Traffic Hawaii...

Angela, I'm going to ask you to wrap it up now.

Okay. That's it. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We also had written testimony in support from Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii, ʻEkolu Mea Nui, Nā ʻŌpio Waiwai, and three individuals. Members, are there, 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, SB 1312 SD1, relating to offenses against public health and morals. This clarifies that profits from prostitution includes repayment of a loan, basically. And first up, we. So that it's not a loophole. 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 Office of the Public Defender. As this Committee knows, there was a case, Ibarra, which the Supreme Court had some rulings on, that stated basically that there was some confusion in the original language of the statute dealing with profits from prostitution.

The Bill tries to address that. What it does not address is the, for lack of any better word, the absurd result of Ibarra's prosecution, wherein two people who knew each other and one loaned money to the other with the idea that it would be repaid.

And the simple fact is that it was repaid by money earned through prostitution. Even the court had said that that was not the purpose, or at least it didn't believe that it was the purpose of the Legislature and that the prosecution of Ibarra was in a sense, an absurd result of the statute.

The corrections made by this Bill dealing with the issue of profits from prostitution would not change that at all. It is not in our written testimony.

But perhaps a suggestion can be made to add language that says if someone loans money to someone else or fronts money to someone else for the purpose of indebting them to commit prostitution or something of that nature, you could alleviate that that absurd result.

I think the purpose of the Bill and the intention is to not allow someone to create a debt with another person and then force that person into prostitution.

So the language could be added that said, if someone is trying to get someone else indebted for the purpose of requiring them to violate the law or to commit prostitution, then you may live alleviate that. It does place a burden on law enforcement and the prosecutor to have to try to prove more.

But then it's absolutely clear what the Legislature is trying to prevent. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Department of the Prosecuting attorney and if you could please in your comments, address what he just talked about and if you had any proposed language for that. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's office. So first, in direct response to the public defenders. No, we believe that that would actually confuse the language because among other things, introducing for the purpose of creates multiple states of mind. So no, we would not support that language.

What we would draw the Committee's attention to is the very thoughtful and meticulous dissent that Chief Justice Reckonwald authored in the Ibarra opinion. Not at all an absurd result. He thought and he pointed out two things.

First, a long standing legislative purpose to target small scale promoters who are usually the first people that you would prosecute in a trafficking ring. And second, the problem of prosecuting cases if there was debt, bondage, debt structuring. This Bill addresses both of those problems.

This Bill addresses both of those problems and we believe it underscores the Legislature's long standing reading that that is not an absurd result. And. And we would defend it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have the Attorney General's Office.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Trisha Nakamatsu on behalf of the Department, we are in strong support of the Bill and thank you, Chair, for hearing it.

As the prosecutor, deputy prosecutor noted, the issue or the concern stated by the office of Public Defender, we don't feel is actually something that would merit further amendments as suggested by the public defender as written.

It actually closes the loophole that results when you have two people, one is indebted to the other and there is an understanding between the two of them that that debt will be paid off through prostitution services. The various types of relationships that could be involved in that sort of agreement or deal can get very complex.

It's very unclear at times. I cannot say for sure that the relationship in State v. Ibarra was as simple as it looks on paper one way or the other. But in any case, we do feel very strongly that this is a loophole that currently exists in the statutes.

We feel that this would address the problem and it is true. The dissent by Chief Justice Reckonwald very clearly did state essentially what we've said, that this is a problem that should be addressed by the we feel is rightfully addressed by the Legislature.

Thank you very much. Next up we have on Zoom. Mr. Billionaire, are you present?

I'm here.

Please go ahead.

So I'm in strong support of the Bill and just with the prosecution office, what everyone said, obviously you guys are smart in the Legislature and all the bills have to be worked in verbatim.

But it sounds good to me the way it's written because when you're dealing with people on the streets, obviously if they're being trafficked, extorted to pay off debt through pimps and other things, you're going to have issues. But we have to be able to prosecute because you're not working at low level criminals.

In Waiki you got huge cartels working Kona, other people with Sinaloa, you got Brown Russians. In Wain you got all kinds of these hoodlums going with organized crime. So as long as you got the prosecuting attorney and the other officers on board, I'm pretty sure they just need your support.

To do the verbatim right, you can use AI or language, but I'm pretty sure you guys are akama and smart enough to figure out the verbiage so we can bring justice for our kids and our family and Ohana, I'm pretty sure you guys can figure that stuff out. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? We had written comments from Sex Workers Outreach Project Hawaii and support from two individuals in writing Members. Are there any questions of our testing seeing none. We're going to move on to our next measure, SB 952 relating to Child Welfare Services.

This is for a project in collaboration with the Department of Human Services and Office of Wellness and Resilience for a five year prevention pilot program to support families at risk of being involved with Child Welfare Services. And first up to testify we have the Office of Wellness and Resilience.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Tia Hartsock Director, Office of Wellness and Resilience in the essence of time. I'll just stand on our testimony here for comments are here for questions if you have any. Have a lot to say about this But I will just stand on our testimony and strong support.

Thank you, thank you and thank you for being here. Next up, we have the Department of Human Services.

Aloha. Good morning. Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds, Members of the Committee, I am Elladine Olevao. I am the Child Welfare Services, a branch administrator, here on behalf of Director Yamani. The Department of Human Services supports the Intent of this Bill and stand on our testimony and will be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Judith Clark on zoom.

Go ahead, Judy Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Judith Clark, Executive Director of Hawaii Youth Services Network and we are in strong support of this Bill. I serve as a Member of the Hawaii Trauma Informed Care Task Force.

Over the last three years, this task force has developed a plan and strategies that will incorporate trauma informed approaches to services provided to children, youth and families. This proposed pilot project will move Hawaii further toward its goal of becoming a trauma informed state.

The Child Welfare Division diversion and intervention pilot project will utilize peer navigators and evidence informed practice to help families access identify needs and access services. It will provide material assistance to support basic survival needs. By strengthening families, it will reduce the overload on the child welfare system. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. We also have Mr. Billionaire on Zoom.

Yep, back again. Thank you all chairs and everybody. So I did have to go over this Bill again because I talked to one of the Malama working group people and she was very upset. I did put us a Bill for support. I want to make some amendments because they felt it's kind of polehole they're trying to fight.

They gave all this data under the working group but they're going to be put under DHS according to the way it's written. And a lot of them are frustrated. You can't let the fox into their henhouse. According to the working group, they don't feel like DHS is going to monitor the state and do it properly.

There's too many cases of murder, death. You heard the first Bill going about torture and that's all through the State of Hawaii system. It's not you guys reading the Bill, but the people on the streets don't trust the system because how do we have accountability? What about DHS? What about the State of Hawaii?

And one of the owners, husbands of CWS is a drug trafficker and drugs smuggler. It's on my Facebook. He didn't get prosecuted but he's got like drug charges from California and beyond. So the people in the streets do not trust CWS, CFS and DHS. And that's just straight up.

But hopefully we can work things out together and you guys can figure out the details. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. We also have written testimony and support from Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, Hawaii Coalition for Child Protective Reform, Opportunity for Youth Action, Hawaii Hawaii Children Action Network Speaks, and two individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions for our testifiers?

I have a question for Office of Wellness and Resilience. You know, this, this did start out as a Bill that or a program that would have been under your office, and now it's a collaboration with dhs. Is that going to complicate it for you? I know that you folks work very well together, so I'm not questioning that.

But I just wondering if administratively that would make it complicated.

I think because we're going to be administratively attached. It will be. I'm sure it will work out. Yeah, I'm not too concerned about it. We're going to stick as close as we can to the recommendations of the Malama Ohana Working Group.

Part of my role in this is to ensure that the recommendations get implemented with Fidelity and with community voice completely integrated all along the way. So my efforts will be to strictly stick to as much of the recommendations as they were created as possible and to keep pushing forward for those recommendations to be implemented.

Thank you very much. Okay, Members, any further questions? Seeing none, we're moving to our last Measure, which is SB 1609 SD1 relating to child care.

This requires Department of Human Services to establish contracts with a certain number and type of child care providers so that they have a block of seats available for people in the preschool open doors program. And first up to testify with comments is the Executive Office on Early Learning. Thank you very much. We have next DHS in support.

Thank you very much.

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

Hello, Maika Co-Chair and Vice Chair. My name is Chevelle Davis with the Hawaii Children's Accident Action Network Speaks. I will largely stand on my written testimony in strong support and also just want to mahalo the testifiers from earlier, you know, to relive their trauma. And thank you all for holding the space to hear their testimonies.

And I also do want to add that, you know, after housing, the cost of child care is the second leading cause as to why domestic violence victims or survivors are unable to leave their situation.

So we really do need to create more pathways for people to get their children into affordable care so that they can get themselves and their children to safety.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure in person? Seeing none, we also had support in writing from the Early Learning. Go ahead. Thank you so much.

So we also had written support from the Early Learning Board from parents and children together, from Early Childhood Action Strategy, from the American Association of University Women, and from six individuals. Members, are there any questions for our testifiers? I have a question for dhs. The. Essentially same Bill that came through the House already.

We had the pilot program having one full classroom at a licensed infant and toddler child care center and one licensed group child care center per county. This one has only one program. You folks were on board with that number when it was coming through the House. Are you still on board with that?

Good morning, Chair. Thank you. Stacey Tonoluchi, Child Care Subsidy Program. Yes, we'd like to actually depend on the procurement process to see the level of interest from our child care providers. So based on that, we'd be.

I saw your testimony changing the word shall to may, and I'm fine with that. But I just, I would like to have more, definitely more of these going on in the counties and the Senate has fewer. So I'd like to return to the House language and I'm just checking to see if something has happened since we met.

No. No. Okay. Thank you very much. Members, are there any other questions? Seeing none, we will move to decision making. Feel rusty at this after a few weeks. Okay. So starting with our first measure, SB281 SD1, the relating to torture, which had an unbelievable amount of passionate testimony, I'd like to restore the. I would.

Chair recommends restoring the language in the original Bill, depriving the minor of vulnerable or a vulnerable person of necessary food, water or clothing and adding in a definition to of deprive, meaning to withhold in a manner that materially endangers the physical or mental health of the minor or vulnerable person.

I'd also like to just do a clarifying edit on page four, lines 1 and 2, where it talks about a handicapped person. That handicapped person is not defined in this section. So instead we'd like it to stick with vulnerable person.

So we'd like to change that reference to a person who has a status described in section 706-662-5B11, to just keep it in line with the Bill. Members, are there any comments or questions about this Bill before we vote?

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Next up we have SB292 SD1 relating to sexual exploitation and this is the safe harbor protection one. If somebody comes forth to HPD and with this one, Chair recommends just making some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Chair, any Members, any comments or questions? Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on SB292 SD1. 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 SB 295 SD1. This is relating to domestic abuse protective orders, and the Chair recommends keeping the Bill as it is. However, just making a part of the Bill refers to some sections that are deleted in the Bill with the amendments. So just the deleted sections.

Referenced on page 8, lines 13 talks about 1A and 2C. These were actually eliminated and consolidated. So we just want to keep the ability of the court to suspend the jail sentence, but refer correctly to just 1 and 2 or clarify that and other technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Any questions or comments?

Members seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB295 SD1. 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 SB 1028 SD1 relating to youth fees and fines. We've been hearing a version of this Bill for multiple years now.

What I'd like to do, my recommendation is to restore the language from HB129 HD2, which includes the language of this Bill for traffic offenses, but instead of just giving the option to substitute community service for fees and fines, it instead leaves that as the only option. It also is more expansive beyond traffic offenses.

It also includes things like vandalism, detectives, tension support and treatment, drug testing, alcohol and drug services. It also eliminates fees for parents with children out past curfew or for failure to escort them in the streets or at dance halls. And also technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Members, any comments or questions?

Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 1028 SD1. Chair's recommendation is to passed with amendments. Any Members voting no? With reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up we have SB 1312 SD1. This is relating to offenses against public health and morals. It's basically recognizing that repaying a loan is not a loophole for running prostitution and I recommend passing this basically intact with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, are there any comments or questions?

Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 1312 SD1 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no? With reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up we have SB 952 SD2. This is the relating to Child Welfare Services. This is the pilot program for five years to do prevention work with at risk families and my recommendation is to pass this as is. Members, are there any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 952 SD2 chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any Members voting no? With reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Our last measure, SB 1609 SD1.

This is for the Department of Human Services contracts with child care providers and I would like to recommend adopting the department's suggestion to replace the word on page two, line 17 from shall to May in case they do not have any partners, private sector partners wanting to participate in the program and also to specify two types of care providers per county so two per county instead of a single program.

So like to reinsert language from the House Bill that the pilot program may provide contracts for at least one full classroom at one license infant and toddler child care center and one licensed group child care center per county and and then also at the end of Section 2, a note that the pilot program shall cease to exist on June 30, 2028.

Members, are there any questions or comments? Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 1609 SD 1, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no? With reservations? Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you all for participating in this very emotional hearing. We are adjourned.