Interferencia en la custodia: Costos y defensas

Explicación Simple

Si alguien toma a un niño sin permiso, puede enfrentar problemas legales. Pero si la persona lo hizo por razones de seguridad o porque el otro no estaba cuidando al niño, puede defenderse.

Es como cuando un amigo te pide que cuides a su perro, pero lo deja solo y desatendido. Si decides llevarlo a tu casa porque crees que está en peligro, podrías tener una buena razón para hacerlo.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan ve que su sobrino, Pedro, está en una situación peligrosa en una fiesta. Juan decide llevarse a Pedro sin el permiso de su hermana. Si Juan puede demostrar que su intención era proteger a Pedro, podría tener una defensa válida en la corte.

Penalidades

Los gastos razonables de ubicar o devolver al niño pueden ser cobrados al condenado.

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

RCW 9A.40.080 - Custodial interference -- Assessment of costs -- Defense -- Consent defense, restricted (1) Any reasonable expenses incurred in locating or returning a child or incompetent person shall be assessed against a defendant convicted under RCW 9A.40.060 or 9A.40.070.(2) In any prosecution of custodial interference in the first or second degree, it is a complete defense, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that:(a) The defendant's purpose was to protect the child, incompetent person, or himself or herself from imminent physical harm, 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;(b) 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;(c) The acts giving rise to the charges were consented to by the complainant; or(d) 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