55-Year-Old Brother of Ex-DNI Charged with Custodial Interference in Hawaii

The arrest and charge of Batarti Gabbard, the 55-year-old brother of former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, for allegedly attempting to lure children at a Waikīkī hotel pool presents a case that intertwines sensitive criminal allegations with high-profile family connections and mental health considerations. On July 12, 2026, Honolulu police say Batarti Gabbard approached several children, including a 9-year-old boy, offered them gum and money to accompany him to his hotel room, asked their names, and wrote them in a notebook. The children refused, a 42-year-old woman reported the incident, and after a positive identification days later, Gabbard was charged with second-degree custodial interference. Separately, he was arrested on July 16 for theft and pleaded not guilty, with a court date set for August 14. His father, Hawaii State Senator Mike Gabbard, confirmed his son is receiving medical and psychiatric treatment, asking for prayers while underscoring family love. The case carries significant legal implications under Hawaii law, where custodial interference in the second degree is a class C felony, defined as intentionally or knowingly taking, enticing, concealing, or detaining a child under eleven from their custodian, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. The alleged conduct—offering treats and money, asking names, and writing them down—fits squarely within the enticement element; the notebook detail could further suggest premeditation or a pattern of behavior, a factor prosecutors often emphasize. However, the fact that the children refused and Gabbard walked away may complicate proving completed enticement, but the statute does not require success; the act of enticing with intent suffices. The separate theft arrest, reportedly four days later, raises questions about possible disorganized behavior consistent with mental health crises, potentially strengthening a defense argument centered on competency or lack of criminal responsibility due to mental disease or defect. The family's candid disclosure of psychiatric treatment signals a likely strategy to negotiate a plea involving treatment rather than incarceration, common in Hawaii for non-violent offenses where mental health is a primary factor. Precedent in Hawaii for such charges often sees diversion to mental health court if the defendant meets criteria, which could keep the case out of the public eye. The political overlay—Tulsi Gabbard's recent resignation from the Trump administration and her high-profile oversight of the FBI raid on Fulton County election offices—will inevitably attract media scrutiny, but legally it is irrelevant to the charge. Nonetheless, it may affect public perception and prosecutorial discretion, potentially leading to a more cautious handling of the case. The investigation remains active, and the Honolulu prosecutor's office will need to weigh the evidence carefully, particularly the credibility of child witnesses and any physical evidence from the notebook. As the August 14 court date approaches for the theft charge, a likely consolidation of cases or a global resolution involving mental health treatment becomes the most plausible outcome. For legal observers, this case underscores the delicate balance between protecting minors and ensuring just outcomes for defendants with apparent mental health challenges, especially when family prominence adds a layer of public interest.