RulesofCivilProcedure.com Civil Procedure · Every State

Rule 142.Extra-Judicial Statements.

Current through July 1, 2026 · Last verified September 11, 2026

In one sentenceRule 142 bars a custodial statement by a child unless warnings were given meaningfully and the child was told of the right to have a parent or adult present.

Full Text of Rule 142

Text size

No extra-judicial statement by the child made as a result of a custodial interrogation by a police officer shall be admitted into evidence absent a showing that required warnings of the child’s constitutional rights were given the child in a meaningful way; that the child was informed of the child’s right to have the child’s parents or other adult present during any custodial interview; that any waiver of said rights was express and made with understanding; and that the statement itself was made voluntarily and without coercion or suggestion. In determining the admissibility of an extra-judicial statement, attention shall be given to the totality of circumstances in giving the warnings and obtaining the statement, including an examination into compliance with the provisions of HRS section 571-31.
End

Amendment History

The Hawaiʻi State Judiciary’s compiled text of this rule carries no amendment order for this rule. For the adopting orders and any later amendments, see the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary’s rules page.

Plain-English Summary

No extra-judicial statement made by a child as a result of a custodial interrogation by a police officer comes into evidence without a showing on two points.

First, that the required warnings of the child constitutional rights were given in a meaningful way. The phrase is doing work: reciting the warnings is not the test, conveying them is.

Second, that the child was informed of the right to have their parents or another adult present during any custodial interrogation. That protection has no adult counterpart, and it exists because a child facing questioning alone is not in the position the ordinary warnings assume.

The rule works with Rule 123, which makes information obtained at an intake interview inadmissible at adjudication where the child denies the petition. Between them, what a child says before the hearing is tightly controlled.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a child statement to police be used in Hawaii family court?

Not without a showing that the required constitutional warnings were given in a meaningful way and that the child was informed of the right to have a parent or other adult present.

Does a child have the right to a parent during questioning?

The rule requires a showing that the child was informed of the right to have their parents or other adult present during any custodial interrogation.

What does meaningful way mean?

The rule requires more than a recitation. The warnings must have been given in a way that conveyed them to the child.

Does this cover statements at intake?

Rule 123 separately makes information about the allegations obtained during intake interviews inadmissible at adjudication where the child denies the petition.

Does the child have a right to stay silent?

Yes. Rule 154 gives a child the right to remain silent through any or all questioning in the proceedings it names.

Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the official Hawaii Family Court Rules (Haw. Fam. Ct. R. 142). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified September 11, 2026. · Official source
Also known as: juvenile confession hawaiimiranda warnings child hawaiiparent present during interrogation hawaiihawaii family court rule 142