Skip to main content
Loading…
This section is included in your selections.

A. A relative of a person is guilty of custodial interference if, with the intent to deny access to such person by a parent, guardian, institution, agency, or other person having a lawful right to physical custody of such person, the relative takes, entices, retains, detains, or conceals the person from a parent, guardian, institution, agency, or other person having a lawful right to physical custody of such person. This subsection shall not apply to parent’s noncompliance with a court-ordered parenting plan.

B. A parent of a child is guilty of custodial interference if:

1. The parent takes, entices, retains, detains or conceals the child, with the intent to deny access, from the other parent having the lawful right to time with the child pursuant to a court-ordered parenting plan;

2. The parent has not complied with the residential provisions of a court-ordered parenting plan after a finding of contempt under RCW 26.09.160(3);

3. If the court finds that the parent engaged in a pattern of wilful violations of the court-ordered residential provisions.

C. Nothing in subsection (B)(2) of this section prohibits conviction of custodial interference under subsections (B)(1) or (B)(3) of this section in absence of findings of contempt.

D. Custodial interference is a gross misdemeanor.

E. Any reasonable expenses incurred in locating or returning a child or incompetent person shall be assessed against a defendant convicted of custodial interference.

F. In any prosecution of custodial interference it is a complete defense, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

1. The defendant’s purpose was to protect the child, incompetent person, or himself or herself from imminent physical harm, and that the belief in the existence of the imminent physical harm was reasonable, and that the defendant sought the assistance of the police, sheriff’s office, protective agencies, or the court of any state before committing the acts giving rise to the charges or within a reasonable time thereafter;

2. The complainant had, prior to the defendant committing the acts giving rise to the crime, for a protracted period of time, failed to exercise his or her rights to physical custody or access to the child under a court-ordered parenting plan or order granting visitation rights, provided that such failure was not the direct result of the defendant’s denial of access to such person;

3. The acts giving rise to the charges were consented to by the complainant;

4. The offender, after providing or making a good faith effort to provide notice to the person entitled to access to the child, failed to provide access to the child due to reasons that a reasonable person would believe were directly related to the welfare of the child, and allowed access to the child in accordance with the court order within a reasonable period of time. The burden of proof that the denial of access was reasonable is upon the person denying access to the child.

G. Consent of a child less than sixteen years of age or of an incompetent person does not constitute a defense to custodial interference. (Ord. 1692-90 § 1, 1990; Ord. 1145-85 § 36, 1985.)