Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 18-401 (2026)

Desertion and nonsupport of children or spouse. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Desertion and nonsupport of children or spouse. 

Every person who:

(1)  Having any child under the age of eighteen (18) years dependent upon him or her for care, education or support, deserts such child in any manner whatever, with intent to abandon it;
(2)  Willfully omits, without lawful excuse, to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance for his or her child or children, or ward or wards; provided however, that the practice of a parent or guardian who chooses for his child treatment by prayer or spiritual means alone shall not for that reason alone be construed to be a violation of the duty of care to such child;
(3)  Having sufficient ability to provide for a spouse’s support, or who is able to earn the means for such spouse’s support, who willfully abandons and leaves a spouse in a destitute condition, or who refuses or neglects to provide such spouse with necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance, unless by the spouse’s misconduct he or she is justified in abandoning him or her;
Shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment for not to exceed fourteen (14) years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: State v. Beorchia, 26 P.3d 603 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Beorchia, 26 P.3d 603 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 16× “I.C. § 18-401. A sentence may represent such an abuse of discretion if it is shown to be unreasonable upon the facts of the case.”
State, Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Housel, 90 P.3d 321 (Idaho 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 32-710A (“Support payments paid to clerk or the department of health and welfare-Prosecuting attorney to enforce payments”); I.C. §§ 18-401 et seq. (“Abandonment or Nonsupport of Wife or Children”).”
Morrison v. Young, 32 P.3d 1116 (Idaho 2001). · cites it 4× “For example, I.C. § 18-401 makes the non-payment of child support a criminal act punishable "by a fine of not more than $500.”
State v. Shaw, 539 P.2d 250 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 4× “Shaw, the defendant-appellant, was charged by an information with the felony of not supporting his three minor children living with their mother, appellant’s former wife during a two year period prior to April 1973, in violation of the provisions of I.C. § 18-401. 1 He was tried…”
United States v. Mussari, 894 F. Supp. 1360 (D. Ariz. 1995). “§ 12-2458 (1994); Idaho Code § 18-401 (1995); Cal.Penal Code § 270 (West 1995); Or.”
United States v. Schroeder, 894 F. Supp. 360 (D. Ariz. 1995). “§ 12-2458 (1994); Idaho Code § 18-401 (1995); Cal.Penal Code § 270 (West 1995); Or.”
McHugh v. McHugh, 699 P.2d 1361 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 4× “I do not say that such is an adequate amount to support and raise the children in the mother's custody.”
State, Dep't of Health & Welfare Ex Rel. Bowler v. Bowler, 782 P.2d 63 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “” That word comes from a criminal statute, I.C. § 18-401, which authorizes imposition of criminal penalties in certain cases of nonsupport.”
Voss v. Voss, 415 P.2d 303 (Idaho 1966). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 18-401(2). In January 1964, two months after the child was born, respondent moved for a court order requiring appellant to pay support for the child and for the costs and expenses of birth.”
State v. Nicholas Tate Vance (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “§ 18-401 does not include “for the purpose of.”
Anderson (D. Idaho 2026). · cites it 2× “Discussion In the Fourth Judicial District Court in Boise County, Idaho, Petitioner pleaded guilty to burglary in violation of Idaho Code § 18-401 . The judgment of conviction was entered on November 15, 2016.”
Idaho Code § 18-401(2): 2 cases
State v. Beorchia, 26 P.3d 603 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001). “I.C. § 18-401. A sentence may represent such an abuse of discretion if it is shown to be unreasonable upon the facts of the case.”
Voss v. Voss, 415 P.2d 303 (Idaho 1966). “See I.C. § 18-401(2). In January 1964, two months after the child was born, respondent moved for a court order requiring appellant to pay support for the child and for the costs and expenses of birth.”
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.