(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2.5) of this section, any person, including a natural or foster parent, who, knowing that he or she has no privilege to do so or heedless in that regard, takes or entices any child under the age of eighteen years from the custody or care of the child's parents, guardian, or other lawful custodian or person with parental responsibilities with respect to the child commits a class 5 felony.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2.5) of this section, any parent or other person who violates an order of any district or juvenile court of this state, granting the custody of a child or parental responsibilities with respect to a child under the age of eighteen years to any person, agency, or institution, with the intent to deprive the lawful custodian or person with parental responsibilities of the custody or care of a child under the age of eighteen years, commits a class 5 felony.
(2.5) Any person who, in the course of committing the offenses described in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, removes a child under the age of eighteen years from this country commits a class 4 felony.
(3) It shall be an affirmative defense either that the offender reasonably believed that his conduct was necessary to preserve the child from danger to his welfare, or that the child, being at the time more than fourteen years old, was taken away at his own instigation without enticement and without purpose to commit a criminal offense with or against the child.
(4) Any criminal action charged pursuant to this section may be tried in either the county where the act is committed or in which the court issuing the orders granting custody or allocating parental responsibilities is located, if such court is within this state.
(5) Repealed.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 422, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-3-304. L. 85: (4) amended, p. 618, § 11, effective July 1. L. 86: (5) added, p. 779, § 1, effective April 3. L. 98: (1) and (2) amended and (2.5) added, p. 1442, § 27, effective July 1; (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 1403, § 56, effective February 1, 1999.
Editor's note: (1) Subsection (5)(c) provided for the repeal of subsection (5), effective December 2, 1986. (See L. 86, p. 779.)
(2) Amendments made to subsections (1) and (2) by House Bill 98-1160 and House Bill 98-1183 were harmonized, effective February 1, 1999.
Cross references: For affirmative defenses generally, see §§ 18-1-407, 18-1-710, and 18-1-805.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case:
People v. Tippett, 733 P.2d 1183 (Colo. 1987).
People v. Tippett, 733 P.2d 1183 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 52× “[2] Section 18-3-304 states in pertinent part: Violation of custody.”
People v. Metcalf, 926 P.2d 133 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 26× “Nevertheless, defendant contends that the General Assembly has criminalized his behavior under § 18-3-304(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B), and that, therefore, the element of "force" must be implied in § 18-3-302(1), C.”
In re the Marriage of Williams & Tibbetts, 2018 COA 117, 428 P.3d 686.
· cites it 2× “See § 13-22- 101(1); see also § 18-3-304(2), C.R.S. 2017 (Any person who violates a district court order granting parental responsibilities “with respect to a child under the age of eighteen years” commits a class 5 felony.”
People v. Moore, 562 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 18× “On February 25, 1975, a jury found the defendant guilty of Violation of Custody (section 18-3-304, C.R.S. 1973). Without asking for or obtaining an extension of time to file his motion for a new trial, the defendant filed that motion on March 10, 1975.”
People v. Beilke, 232 P.3d 146 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 10× “The People charged defendant with violation of a custody order under section 18-3-304(2), C.R.S.2008, and harboring a minor in violation of section 18-6-601, C.”
People v. Sorrendino, 37 P.3d 501 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “He contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain this conviction because the order he violated would not, as a matter of law, qualify as a "custody order" for purposes of § 18-3-304(2). He also argues that, in any event, his conviction must be reversed because of an…”
People v. Armendariz, 684 P.2d 252 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 12× “[1] Prior to the passage of § 18-3-304 this matter was treated as a misdemeanor.”
People v. Coyle, 654 P.2d 815 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 5× “Coyle, appeals from his conviction in Denver District Court for violation of a child custody order, section 18-3-304, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol.”
v. Deutsch, 2020 COA 114, 471 P.3d 1266.
· cites it 2× “See § 18-3-304(2), C.R.S. 2019 (Violation of a custody order requires “intent to deprive the lawful .”
People v. Juv. Court, 893 P.2d 81 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 3× “s others and immediate removal appears to be necessary for such child’s protection or the protection of others; (b) When there are reasonable grounds to believe that such child has run away or escaped from such child’s parents, guardian, or legal custodian; or (c) When an arrest…”
Kessel v. Leavitt, 511 S.E.2d 720 (W. Va. 1998).
“See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-3-304 (1986). The Court then reasoned: Based on the fact that it is a crime in this state to take a child from his or her lawful custodian and to deprive the lawful custodian of custody of a child, we recognize the tort of interference with the…”
State v. Munoz, 2006-NMSC-005, 129 P.3d 142.
“7(a) (1999) (requiring a good faith and reasonable belief); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-3-304(3) (2005) (requiring a reasonable belief); Fla.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-304(1): 3 cases
People v. Metcalf, 926 P.2d 133 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
“Nevertheless, defendant contends that the General Assembly has criminalized his behavior under § 18-3-304(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B), and that, therefore, the element of "force" must be implied in § 18-3-302(1), C.”
People v. Tippett, 733 P.2d 1183 (Colo. 1987).
“[2] Section 18-3-304 states in pertinent part: Violation of custody.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-304(2): 12 cases
People v. Tippett, 733 P.2d 1183 (Colo. 1987).
“[2] Section 18-3-304 states in pertinent part: Violation of custody.”
In re the Marriage of Williams & Tibbetts, 2018 COA 117, 428 P.3d 686.
“See § 13-22- 101(1); see also § 18-3-304(2), C.R.S. 2017 (Any person who violates a district court order granting parental responsibilities “with respect to a child under the age of eighteen years” commits a class 5 felony.”
People v. Sorrendino, 37 P.3d 501 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“He contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain this conviction because the order he violated would not, as a matter of law, qualify as a "custody order" for purposes of § 18-3-304(2). He also argues that, in any event, his conviction must be reversed because of an…”
People v. Metcalf, 926 P.2d 133 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
“Nevertheless, defendant contends that the General Assembly has criminalized his behavior under § 18-3-304(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B), and that, therefore, the element of "force" must be implied in § 18-3-302(1), C.”
People v. Armendariz, 684 P.2d 252 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
“[1] Prior to the passage of § 18-3-304 this matter was treated as a misdemeanor.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-304(3): 5 cases
People v. Beilke, 232 P.3d 146 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“The People charged defendant with violation of a custody order under section 18-3-304(2), C.R.S.2008, and harboring a minor in violation of section 18-6-601, C.”
People v. Tippett, 733 P.2d 1183 (Colo. 1987).
“[2] Section 18-3-304 states in pertinent part: Violation of custody.”
People v. Moore, 562 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1977).
“On February 25, 1975, a jury found the defendant guilty of Violation of Custody (section 18-3-304, C.R.S. 1973). Without asking for or obtaining an extension of time to file his motion for a new trial, the defendant filed that motion on March 10, 1975.”
State v. Munoz, 2006-NMSC-005, 129 P.3d 142.
“7(a) (1999) (requiring a good faith and reasonable belief); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-3-304(3) (2005) (requiring a reasonable belief); Fla.”
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.