What Is Custodial Interference in Washington State?

Custodial interference in Washington state is a crime that happens when a parent, or sometimes a relative, intentionally keeps a child away from another parent who has a legal right to time with that child. Depending on the circumstances, it is charged as either a gross misdemeanor or a Class C felony, and the same conduct can also be addressed in family court through a contempt motion. Repeat violations can eventually cost the offending parent residential time under the parenting plan.

Second-Degree Custodial Interference

Second-degree is the charge most parents encounter. A parent commits it by taking, keeping, or hiding a child from the other parent who has lawful residential time under a court-ordered parenting plan, with the intent to deny that parent access.¹ Intent is central. The question is not just what happened on a given day; it is whether the parent meant to block the other parent’s time.

A charge can also arise two other ways under the same statute: after a court has already found the parent in contempt for violating the residential schedule, or when there is a pattern of willful violations of the plan’s residential provisions.¹ That second route matters because a criminal charge can follow a pattern of behavior even without a prior contempt finding.

Penalties depend on history. A first conviction is a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to 364 days in county jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. A second or subsequent conviction becomes a Class C felony carrying up to five years in state prison and a fine of up to $10,000.²

The statute reaches beyond parents. A grandparent, aunt, uncle, or other relative who hides or keeps a child from a parent with lawful custody rights faces the same charge, and no parenting plan has to be in place for the relative version to apply.¹

First-Degree Custodial Interference

First-degree is a Class C felony in every case, with no misdemeanor option.³ The underlying conduct looks like second-degree, but the charge escalates when any one of these added elements is present:

The parent intends to hold the child permanently or for a protracted period. Telling the other parent they will never see the child again, or refusing to return the child for weeks or months, fits here.
The parent exposes the child to a substantial risk of illness or physical injury while withholding them.
The parent removes the child from the child’s state of usual residence with the intent to deny access. Taking the child out of Washington is enough on its own.

Any one of these, combined with the intent to deny access, supports a felony charge.³ Conviction carries up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.²

Washington also recognizes first-degree custodial interference when no custody order exists at all. A parent who takes or hides a child under 18 from the other parent with the intent to deprive that parent of access permanently or for a protracted period commits a Class C felony, even though no court has issued a parenting plan.³ This covers situations where an unmarried parent disappears with a child before any court proceedings have started.

What Does Not Count

Not every schedule problem is a crime. The law targets deliberate denial of access, not logistical misfires. Being 20 minutes late to a pickup because of traffic, or needing to reschedule a single exchange because the child has the flu, does not rise to the level of custodial interference. Courts look for deliberate conduct, not honest mistakes.

What matters is the gap between an isolated incident and a pattern. One missed exchange with a reasonable explanation is unlikely to support even a contempt finding. Several missed exchanges, paired with messages showing the parent knew about the schedule and chose to ignore it, starts to look like the intent the statute requires.

Defenses to a Custodial Interference Charge

Washington law provides four complete defenses. If the defendant proves one by a preponderance of the evidence, the charge fails entirely. Each defense has specific requirements that people routinely miss.

Protection From Imminent Physical Harm

A parent who withholds a child to protect the child from imminent physical harm has a defense, but only if the parent also contacted police, a sheriff’s office, a protective agency such as CPS, or a court in any state, either before withholding the child or within a reasonable time afterward.⁴ Both pieces are required: a reasonable belief in imminent physical harm, and prompt outreach to authorities. A parent who genuinely fears for the child’s safety but never calls anyone loses this defense. The statute references physical harm only; emotional harm concerns, however serious, do not satisfy it.

Good-Faith Denial for Child Welfare Reasons

A separate defense covers situations where a parent denies access for reasons a reasonable person would consider directly related to the child’s welfare, as long as the parent made a good-faith effort to notify the other parent and then allowed access within a reasonable period.⁴ The burden of proving the denial was reasonable rests on the parent who withheld access. This is narrower than it sounds. A child being mildly sick or tired is not the kind of welfare concern that overrides a court order.

Abandonment by the Other Parent

If the parent claiming interference had already stopped exercising custody or visitation rights for a protracted period before the alleged interference, that abandonment is a complete defense. The catch: the abandonment cannot be something the defendant caused. If the other parent stopped showing up because the defendant made exchanges hostile or impossible, this defense will not hold.⁴

Consent

If the other parent agreed to the arrangement that is now the basis for the charge, consent is a complete defense. Consent from the child does not count. Washington law states that a child under 16 agreeing to stay with one parent is not a defense to custodial interference.⁴ “My teenager refuses to go” is one of the explanations courts hear most often, and it does not protect the parent who allows the child to stay.

Civil Enforcement Through Contempt

Not every violation needs to be run through the criminal system. The more common route is a motion for contempt under RCW 26.09.160, asking the family court to find that the other parent willfully disobeyed the parenting plan. If the court finds contempt, several remedies are available:

Makeup residential time equal to what was missed, unless the court decides that adjustment would not serve the child’s best interests.⁵
A civil penalty of at least $250, with no statutory ceiling.⁵
An order requiring the noncompliant parent to reimburse the other parent’s costs and attorney fees for bringing the action.⁵

If a child has been abducted or is in immediate physical danger, contempt is too slow. Call law enforcement first. The criminal statutes exist for exactly those situations.

When Repeat Violations Change the Parenting Plan

Repeated custodial interference can eventually cost the offending parent residential time. A court can modify an existing parenting plan if the noncompliant parent has been found in contempt at least twice within three years for violating the residential schedule, or has been convicted of custodial interference in either degree. A conviction is treated as a substantial change of circumstances by itself, which is the legal threshold needed to reopen a parenting plan for modification.⁶

This is where the civil and criminal tracks converge. A parent who treats contempt findings as a cost of doing business eventually gives the other parent grounds to change the plan itself. Two findings in three years, and the court no longer needs a separate change-of-circumstances showing before considering a new arrangement.

If the Child Is Taken Out of Washington

Removing a child across state lines with the intent to deny the other parent access is one of the triggers for a first-degree felony charge.³ Getting the child back raises a second problem, because enforcement now requires courts in two states to cooperate.

Washington has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act under Chapter 26.27 RCW. Under the UCCJEA, Washington courts must honor custody orders from other states, and other states must enforce valid Washington parenting plans. A Washington order can be registered in the courts of the state where the child was taken and enforced there. The state that originally issued the order generally keeps jurisdiction as long as at least one parent or the child still lives there, so a parent who relocates with the child cannot simply file in the new state and try for a different order. The practical point: if a child is taken out of Washington, contact law enforcement and a family law attorney right away, because the longer the child stays in another state, the more complicated enforcement becomes.

1
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 9A.40.070 – Custodial Interference in the Second Degree
2
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 9A.20.021 – Maximum Sentences for Crimes Committed July 1, 1984
3
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 9A.40.060 – Custodial Interference in the First Degree
4
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 9A.40.080 – Custodial Interference Assessment of Penalties Defenses
5
Washington State Legislature. RCW 26.09.160 – Failure to Comply With Decree or Temporary Injunction
6
Washington State Legislature. RCW 26.09.260 – Modification of Parenting Plan or Custody Decree