Committee hears support, implementation concerns for bill to notify military when protective orders involve service members

Chair convened discussion of House Bill 2264, which would require courts to notify military security forces when a protective order is issued in a case involving a military‑affiliated individual. Proponents said the measure would strengthen information sharing between civilian and military authorities and better protect victims.

Kelli Mae Douglas of the U.S. Defense State Liaison Office told the committee, "I stand on our written testimony in strong support of the provisions within HB 2,264, which aims to protect victims of interpersonal violence by strengthening information sharing and collaboration between military and civilian law enforcement." John Green, deputy director of the Military and Community Relations Office, said notifying military security forces "within 24 hours allows commands to take appropriate action, reinforce compliance, and provide additional oversight where necessary."

Family Court Judge Jessie Hall said the court supports the bill’s intent but asked the committee to defer decision making so the military can re‑engage with the courts. Hall described a prior operational practice in which petitions included a checkbox indicating military affiliation and a fax pickup process that ceased working in September 2025. "We attempted to email the HASP officer ... the emails were never responded to," Hall said, noting courthouse staff currently hold stacks of documents that were not collected. She provided 2025 counts of protective orders marked as military‑involved by circuit: Oahu/First Circuit 832; Maui/Second 254; Hawaii/Third 385; Kauai/Fifth 58.

Angelina (Angie) Mercado, executive director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said her organization supports the bill but offered two amendments: limit notifications to orders where the petitioner indicates military involvement on the petition form and delay the effective date to January 1, 2027, to allow time for implementation and system testing. "We will recommend actually making a change to the statute so that it's not all the protective orders that may be going to the armed services but just those that are indicated as being military involved," Mercado said.

Committee members asked whether written memoranda of understanding could provide stable contact points; Kelli Mae Douglas offered to help reestablish points of contact and suggested MOUs could strengthen mutual responsibilities and avoid relying on a single fax number. Members also discussed the role of commands in hearings when a service member’s duties require weapons access; Judge Hall said she was not aware of any instance on island where failure to notify led to a weapon‑related escalation.

No vote was taken. The committee deferred decision making on HB2264 to the next decision‑making agenda so staff can follow up on implementation details with military contacts and clarify whether current practices vary across circuits.

The committee moved on to other bills; the record shows testimony and requests for operational details will inform a future decision.