C.G.S. § 53a-97 – Custodial Interference in the First Degree

Connecticut treats interference with a child’s lawful custody very seriously—especially when a child is taken out of state or put at risk. Under C.G.S. § 53a-97, a person commits Custodial Interference in the First Degree when they commit custodial interference (second degree) and either remove the child from Connecticut or expose the child to a risk that their safety or health will be endangered. This offense is a Class D felony.

Because these cases almost always involve parents, relatives, or household members, they are frequently classified as family-violence (domestic) cases. In practice, courts steer these matters to the Family Violence Education Program (FVEP) rather than Accelerated Rehabilitation (AR). When the case is handled as family-violence, FVEP—not AR—is typically the diversion path that can lead to dismissal and erasure upon successful completion.

To convict under § 53a-97, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:

1. Custodial Interference (Second Degree) occurred — you, without legal right, took, enticed, kept, or withheld:
   • a child under 16 (or an incompetent person) from the child’s lawful custodian; or
   • as a relative of a child under 16, you intended to hold the child permanently or for a protracted period from the lawful custodian; and
2. One aggravating factor:
   • You removed the child from Connecticut; or
   • You exposed the child to a risk that the child’s safety would be endangered or their health would be impaired.

• Class D Felony
  • Prison: Up to 5 years
  • Fine: Up to $5,000
  • Probation: Possible (often with conditions tied to family-court compliance, counseling, and no-contact/return provisions)

Collateral consequences can include immigration impacts, licensing issues, protective orders, and significant effects in family-court custody and visitation proceedings.

When designated as family violence, you will be placed on the Family Violence Docket. Expect:

• A next-day arraignment and an interview with Family Relations.
• Immediate issuance of a criminal protective order (full no-contact, residential stay-away, or partial).
• Ongoing court monitoring and counseling requirements while the case is pending.
• The defense can later move to modify the protective order when circumstances stabilize and Family Relations supports it.

• Family Violence Education Program (FVEP):

  This is the standard diversion route in family-violence custodial-interference cases. If granted and successfully completed, the case is dismissed and erased. Admission is discretionary and typically requires a strong mitigation package (stable housing/employment, counseling, a safety plan, and cooperation with family-court orders).

• Accelerated Rehabilitation (AR):
  While AR can sometimes apply in non-family-violence settings, family-violence custodial-interference cases are generally directed to FVEP rather than AR. If the case is not designated family-violence (unusual in this context), AR may be explored as a fallback.
• Family-Court Coordination:
  Parallel work in family court—temporary orders, parenting plans, supervised exchanges—often helps secure FVEP admission or a favorable resolution.

• A parent keeps a child beyond parenting time and drives out of Connecticut to prevent the return.
• A relative picks up a child from school and refuses to return the child to the custodial parent.
• One parent withholds the child during a dispute, and circumstances suggest the child’s safety/health is at risk.

• No violation of a “lawful custodian”: Orders were unclear, modified, or the other party lacked lawful custody.
• No intent / misunderstanding: Scheduling mistakes, miscommunications, or reasonable reliance on counsel.
• No aggravator: No out-of-state removal and no safety/health risk (supports reduction to second degree).
• Safety justification: Immediate action taken to protect the child from imminent harm, with prompt contact to court/DCF/police.
• Order ambiguity / due process: Conflicting or insufficiently served orders.
• Proof problems: Texts/emails/GPS contradict the timeline or show efforts to return the child.

• Clarity and validity of custody/visitation orders
• Intent to withhold beyond lawful rights
• Out-of-state travel or planning to evade return
• Evidence of risk to safety/health (medical notes, living conditions)
• Communications showing planning or concealment

• Certified custody/visitation orders and any modifications
• Texts/emails showing consent, logistics, or attempts to return
• Location data (phone, tolls, GPS) proving movements and timing
• Medical/therapeutic records supporting a safety-based decision
• Witness statements confirming non-evasive intent and cooperation

• § 53a-98 – Custodial Interference in the Second Degree (often a lesser included)
• § 53a-223 – Violation of Criminal Protective Order (if an order is in place)
• § 53a-95 / § 53a-96 – Unlawful Restraint (First/Second Degree)

Leaving the state can elevate second-degree custodial interference to first degree if the other elements are met.

Typically, no. Family-violence custodial-interference cases are generally routed to FVEP, not AR.

A safety justification can be a powerful defense if the danger was imminent and you promptly sought help from the court/DCF/police.

Almost certainly. Criminal allegations can influence family-court orders; coordinated strategy is critical.

Often yes, after compliance and with Family Relations’ support. Your lawyer can file a motion to modify.

If you’re being investigated or charged under C.G.S. § 53a-97, act quickly. Early intervention lets us stabilize the family-court side, protect your record, and pursue FVEP to position the case for dismissal and erasure.

Call Attorney Allan F. Friedman at (203) 357-5555 or use my online contact form for a confidential consultation. Let’s protect your rights, your record, and your relationship with your child.