HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 2108

BYRepresentatives Appelwick and P. King 

Regarding custodial interference.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (18)

      Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Padden, Ranking Republican Member; Belcher, Brough, Dellwo, Hargrove, Inslee, P. King, R. Meyers, Moyer, H. Myers, Patrick, Schmidt, Scott, D. Sommers, Tate and Wineberry.

House Staff:Pat Shelledy (786-7149)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY MARCH 1, 1989

BACKGROUND:

A relative of a person is guilty of custodial interference in the second degree if the relative takes a person with intent to deny access to the person by a parent, guardian, institution, agency or other person having lawful right to physical custody of the person. Current law does not cover people or agencies which do not have lawful physical custody but have a right to access to the child pursuant to a residential schedule in the parenting plan, such as the noncustodial parent.

The court can impose against a person convicted of custodial interference the reasonable expenses of locating and returning the child.

It is a defense to custodial interference if the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the purpose of taking the child was to protect the defendant or the child from imminent physical harm.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  A relative of a child commits custodial interference in the second degree if the relative takes the child with intent to deny access to the child during a period that a parent, guardian or other person is scheduled to have access to the child under a court ordered visitation schedule.  A relative can be convicted of custodial interference only if a prior court order had specified the conditions of access, had found that the defendant already had without good cause intentionally denied access to the child in violation of an original order, and that the defendant had been warned that failure to comply with the court order could result in criminal sanctions.

The court may recover $100 in court costs against a person convicted of custodial interference in the second degree.  This recovery is in addition to criminal penalties that may be imposed for conviction.

A defendant cannot assert the defense of trying to protect the child from harm unless the defendant contacted the police before taking the child. Three additional defenses to the charge are created as follows: 1) the complainant had for a protracted period failed to exercise the right of access to the child, 2)the complainant consented to the acts, and 3) the defendant did not return the child due to reasons directly related to the child's welfare.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The substitute makes several grammatical and structural changes.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Kim Prochnau, Evergreen Legal Services; Lonnie Johns-Brown, NOW.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Noncustodial parents will obtain protection from interference with their visitation rights.  The bill is specific enough to give notice of what constitutes the crime.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.