Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 787.03 (2025)

Interference with custody.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

787.03 Interference with custody.—

(1) Whoever, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or entices, or aids, abets, hires, or otherwise procures another to take or entice, any minor or any incompetent person from the custody of the minor’s or incompetent person’s parent, his or her guardian, a public agency having the lawful charge of the minor or incompetent person, or any other lawful custodian commits the offense of interference with custody and commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) In the absence of a court order determining rights to custody or visitation with any minor or with any incompetent person, any parent of the minor or incompetent person, whether natural or adoptive, stepparent, legal guardian, or relative of the minor or incompetent person who has custody thereof and who takes, detains, conceals, or entices away that minor or incompetent person within or without the state with malicious intent to deprive another person of his or her right to custody of the minor or incompetent person commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A subsequently obtained court order for custody or visitation does not affect application of this section.

(4) It is a defense that:

(a) The defendant had reasonable cause to believe that his or her action was necessary to preserve the minor or the incompetent person from danger to his or her welfare.

(b) The defendant was the victim of an act of domestic violence or had reasonable cause to believe that he or she was about to become the victim of an act of domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28, and the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the action was necessary in order for the defendant to escape from, or protect himself or herself from, the domestic violence or to preserve the minor or incompetent person from exposure to the domestic violence.

(c) The minor or incompetent person was taken away at his or her own instigation without enticement and without purpose to commit a criminal offense with or against the minor or incompetent person, and the defendant establishes that it was reasonable to rely on the instigating acts of the minor or incompetent person.

(5) Proof that a person has not attained the age of 18 years creates the presumption that the defendant knew the minor’s age or acted in reckless disregard thereof.

(6)(a) The offenses prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in cases in which a person having a legal right to custody of a minor or incompetent person is the victim of any act of domestic violence, has reasonable cause to believe he or she is about to become the victim of any act of domestic violence, as defined in s. 741.28, or believes that his or her action was necessary to preserve the minor or the incompetent person from danger to his or her welfare and seeks shelter from such acts or possible acts and takes with him or her the minor or incompetent person.

(b) In order to gain the exception conferred by paragraph (a), a person who takes a minor or incompetent person under this subsection must:

1. Within 10 days after taking the minor or incompetent person, make a report to the sheriff’s office or state attorney’s office for the county in which the minor or incompetent person resided at the time he or she was taken, which report must include the name of the person taking the minor or incompetent person, the current address and telephone number of the person and minor or incompetent person, and the reasons the minor or incompetent person was taken.

2. Within a reasonable time after taking a minor, commence a custody proceeding that is consistent with the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. s. 1738A, or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, ss. 61.501-61.542.

3. Inform the sheriff’s office or state attorney’s office for the county in which the minor or incompetent person resided at the time he or she was taken of any change of address or telephone number of the person and the minor or incompetent person.

(c)1. The current address and telephone number of the person and the minor or incompetent person which are contained in the report made to a sheriff or state attorney under paragraph (b) are confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.

2. A sheriff or state attorney may allow an agency, as defined in s. 119.011, to inspect and copy records made confidential and exempt under this paragraph in the furtherance of that agency’s duties and responsibilities.

History.—s. 24, ch. 74-383; s. 14, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 1, ch. 88-244; s. 25, ch. 94-134; s. 25, ch. 94-135; s. 1201, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2000-231; s. 1, ch. 2000-357; s. 157, ch. 2004-5; s. 1, ch. 2005-89; s. 1, ch. 2006-114; s. 1, ch. 2006-115; s. 1, ch. 2011-99.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 787.03

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§787.03(1)FAMILY OFFENSEINTERFERE W CUSTODY OF MINOR/INCOMP PERSONF · 3rd

§787.03(2)FAMILY OFFENSEDEPRIVE CUSTODY OF MINOR INCOMPETENT PERSONF · 3rd

§787.03FAMILY OFFENSERENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8882F · 3rd

§787.03FAMILY OFFENSERENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8883F · 3rd

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Brown v. Ent. Merchants Assn., 131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brown v. Ent. Merchants Assn., 131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011). · cites it 2× “§272(b)(1) (West 2008); Fla. Stat. §787.03 (2010). Every State in the Union still establishes a minimum age for marriage without parental or judicial consent.”

Lindemuth v. State, 247 So. 3d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). · cites it 11× “” The trial court wanted it to be clear there was no sexual component to the definition of entice in the jury instruction, as subsection (1) of section 787.03, under which Lindemuth was charged, has no sexual component to it.”

Khan v. State, 704 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). · cites it 9× “Muneer Khan appeals from his convictions and sentences for interfering with custody of a child in violation of section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.”

Gisi v. State, 848 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). · cites it 2× “04(1), Florida Statutes (1997), one count of interference with custody in violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes (1997), and one count of seduction of a child via computer in violation of section 847.”

State v. Earl, 649 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). · cites it 6× “[1] On October 4, 1993, the state filed an information charging Earl with one count of *298 Interference With Custody, in violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes (1993). The charging document states that Earl interfered with the custody of three children, ages six, five…”

Frias v. Demings, 823 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (M.D. Fla. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Fla. Stat. § 787.03 . However, for the sake of brevity, the Court will refer to the incident as a "taking.”

Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 787.03, Fla. Stat. (1997). This statute prohibits a person, without lawful authority, from knowingly or recklessly interfering with the lawful custody of a child seventeen years of age, or younger.”

Gisi v. State, 909 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] Gisi was also convicted of interference with custody, § 787.03, Fla. Stat. (1997), and seduction of a child via computer, § 847.”

State v. Badalich, 479 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). · cites it 6× “1984) [1] Count two charges Badalich with interference with custody in violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes (1983). [2] Badalich filed a motion to dismiss the amended information pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.”

Arroyo v. State, 705 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). · cites it 3× “The appellant's theory of defense was that she did not participate in the taking of her children from their custodian. Because we find that the state's evidence was not inconsistent with the appellant's hypothesis of innocence, the appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal…”

Edgar v. Firuta, 100 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). · cites it 4× “Contempt and Section 787.03, Florida Statutes As noted, the Mother knowingly violated the Florida court’s November 19, 2010, *261 order that she was not to remove the youngest child from Monroe County.”

State v. Munoz, 2006 NMSC 5 (N.M. 2006). “§ 18-3-304(3) (2005) (requiring a reasonable belief); Fla. Stat. § 787.03 (4) (2005) (requiring a reasonable belief); Haw.”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— 787.03(1) — 14 cases

Lindemuth v. State, 247 So. 3d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “” The trial court wanted it to be clear there was no sexual component to the definition of entice in the jury instruction, as subsection (1) of section 787.03, under which Lindemuth was charged, has no sexual component to it.”

Khan v. State, 704 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “Muneer Khan appeals from his convictions and sentences for interfering with custody of a child in violation of section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.”

Arroyo v. State, 705 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). “The appellant's theory of defense was that she did not participate in the taking of her children from their custodian. Because we find that the state's evidence was not inconsistent with the appellant's hypothesis of innocence, the appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal…”

Rodas v. State, 967 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Leding v. State, 725 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

— 787.03(1)(1985) — 1 case

Bergnes v. Bergnes, 24 Fla. Supp. 2d 41 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1987).

— 787.03(2) — 4 cases

Moseley v. State, 7 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Benjamin Coffield v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Liliana Francisca Vanegas v. The State of Florida (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).

Ayyash v. Farmer, 750 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

— 787.03(5)(a) — 1 case

U. P. C., Inc. v. Intercontinental Bank, 410 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

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.