C.G.S. § 53a-98 — Custodial Interference in the Second Degree (Connecticut)

Custodial Interference in the Second Degree covers situations where a relative takes, keeps, or entices a child under 16 from the child’s lawful custodian for a protracted period, knowing they have no legal right to do so. It’s a Class A misdemeanor and, because it commonly arises within families, it is often charged as a domestic-violence (family-violence) offense.

To obtain a conviction under § 53a-98, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

• You are a relative of the child (parent, grandparent, sibling, etc.).
• You took, kept, or enticed a child under 16 from the lawful custodian.
• You knew you had no legal right to do so.
• You kept the child for a protracted period (fact-specific; see FAQ).

This statute differs from § 53a-97 (First Degree) because § 53a-98 does not require removal from Connecticut or exposure to risk of injury.

• Class A misdemeanor
• Up to 1 year in jail
• Up to $2,000 fine
• Probation possible, with conditions (counseling, supervised exchanges, compliance with court orders)

If charged as DV, expect a criminal protective order (partial, full, or residential stay-away) while the case is pending.

• Arraignment next business day at Stamford GA-1 (if New Canaan/Stamford area).
• Family Relations interview before court; recommendation on the level of protective order.
• Protective order issued immediately; violations are a separate felony.
• We routinely move to modify or relax orders once the situation stabilizes (e.g., to allow child-related communication or supervised exchanges).

Because these cases are typically family-violence, the appropriate diversionary option is the:

Family Violence Education Program (FVEP)

• For eligible first-time DV offenders (no serious injury, no weapon, no disqualifying history).
• Nine weekly classes; successful completion usually leads to dismissal and erasure.
• Admission is discretionary; we submit a mitigation package (background, parenting role, counseling, exchange plan) to support entry.

• Seek or defend ex parte emergency custody orders in Family Court when appropriate.
• Arrange supervised exchange centers or neutral third-party exchanges.
• Preserve parenting-app logs (e.g., communications about pick-ups/drop-offs).
• Coordinate the criminal and family dockets so conditions don’t conflict.

• A parent keeps a child past a scheduled return and stops responding.
• A relative picks up the child without permission during a contentious breakup.
• A hand-off goes sideways (missed exchange, changed location) and emotions escalate.

• No “lawful custodian” breach: If legal custody/guardianship was shared or unclear, the “no legal right” element may fail.
• No “protracted period”: Brief delays or logistical mix-ups don’t meet the statute.
• Good-faith misunderstanding: Documented communication, travel issues, or illness can negate intent.
• Compliance with family orders: Showing you followed Family Court directives undercuts the charge.
• De-escalation plan: Proposing supervised exchanges and clear schedules can resolve cases without a conviction.

• Texts/emails showing intent or refusal to return.
• Length of time the child was withheld and impact on the other parent.
• Any prior disputes, police calls, or protective-order history.
• Whether there was manipulation of exchanges to gain leverage in custody.

• Parenting-app logs, emails, and texts (timestamps matter).
• Travel records, GPS, screenshots proving efforts to return.
• Family Court orders and proof of compliance.
• Witnesses at exchanges; video from exchange locations.

• § 53a-97 — Custodial Interference in the First Degree (felony)
• § 53a-223 — Violation of Criminal Protective Order
• § 53a-61 — Assault 3rd (sometimes companion in DV incidents)
• § 53a-181 / § 53a-182 — Breach of Peace / Disorderly Conduct (DV context)

It depends on who is the lawful custodian by statute or circumstance (e.g., married parents usually share, unmarried situations can differ). When rights are equal or unclear, proving “no legal right” is harder for the State. We evaluate this first.

Police often view routine visitation disputes as civil—unless the facts meet the criminal elements of § 53a-98. If a child is withheld for a protracted period and there’s clear lack of legal right, police may act. Otherwise, Family Court remedies (contempt, modified orders) are typical.

There’s no fixed number of hours. Courts look at context: the child’s age, the length of delay, missed school/medical care, distance, and parental distress. A short, explained delay usually isn’t “protracted”; longer, unexplained withholding can be.

A documented good-faith misunderstanding (texts, prior patterns, mixed messages) can negate the “knowing/no legal right” requirement.

Possibly. Out-of-state removal can elevate the charge, particularly with added risk factors. We work fast to limit exposure and keep the case at the misdemeanor level.

No. Only the prosecutor can dismiss criminal charges. That said, cooperation and a safe exchange plan often lead to diversion or dismissal.

Yes. A dismissal (including after FVEP) is erased by law, and you can truthfully say you were not convicted.

If you’ve complied with orders and we present a structured, safe plan (e.g., supervised exchanges), courts often relax restrictions within weeks.

If you’re facing a § 53a-98 charge, you need a plan that protects both your record and your relationship with your child. I’ll move quickly to stabilize the situation, line up the right evidence, and pursue FVEP or dismissal wherever possible.

Call Allan F. Friedman at (203) 357-5555 for a confidential consultation or use my online contact form. Let’s get a sensible solution in place—fast.