Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1310 (2026)

Abduction of child from a state agency; classification; definition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

13-1310. Abduction of child from a state agency; classification; definition

A. A person commits abduction of a child from a state agency if, knowing or having reason to know that a child is entrusted by authority of law to the custody of a state agency, the person does either of the following:

1. Takes, entices or keeps the child from the lawful custody of the state agency.

2. Intentionally fails or refuses to immediately return or impedes the immediate return of a child to the lawful custody of the state agency, including at the expiration of visitation or access.

B. A violation of subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section is a class 5 felony, except that it is a class 1 misdemeanor if all of the following apply:

1. The child has voluntarily and without consent left the placement location.

2. The person who fails or refuses to return the child is the child's natural or adoptive parent.

3. The person's motive for keeping the child is to protect and care for the child.

C. A violation of subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section is:

1. A class 3 felony if the child is taken, enticed or kept from the lawful custody of the state agency and is taken outside of this state.

2. A class 4 felony if the child is taken, enticed or kept from the lawful custody of the state agency but the child remains in this state at all times.

3. A class 6 felony if the person voluntarily returns the child without physical injury not later than forty-eight hours after the person takes, entices or keeps the child from the lawful custody of the state agency.

4. A class 1 misdemeanor if all of the following apply:

(a) The child has voluntarily and without consent left the placement location.

(b) The person who fails or refuses to return the child is the child's natural or adoptive parent.

(c) The person's motive for keeping the child is to protect and care for the child.

D. For the purposes of this section, "state agency" means the department of child safety or the department of juvenile corrections.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1965–1976 · leading case: Walsh v. State Ex Rel. Eyman, 450 P.2d 392 (Ariz. 1969).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Walsh v. State Ex Rel. Eyman, 450 P.2d 392 (Ariz. 1969). · cites it 4× “They also allege that they were not informed of their right to demand counsel as required by A.R.S. § 13-1310. They strongly urge that the legal effect of their extradition to California, prior to the completion of their Arizona sentences, operated as a waiver by Arizona of any…”
State v. Jacobson, 526 P.2d 784 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “On September 5, 1974, Tyger’s attorney and the state attorney, appeared before the respondent court, apparently for the purpose of procuring time for the filing of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1310, which provides in pertinent part: “ .”
Boies v. Dovico, 400 P.2d 109 (Ariz. 1965). · cites it 4× “Thereafter, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1310, the Appellee filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, resisting the Governor’s warrant and again urging that he was not present in Pennsylvania at the time of the alleged burglary.”
Donald Gene Boag v. L. C. Boies, Sheriff of Maricopa Cnty., 455 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1972). “Section 10 of this Act (A.R.S. § 13-1310; Cal. Penal Code § 1550.”
State ex rel. Babbitt v. Kinman, 550 P.2d 1108 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “The trial court is limited to a consideration of the jurisdictional facts in habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1310. Our Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, A.”
Boies v. Anderson, 435 P.2d 70 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1310, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ was issued in the trial court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.