Sec. 4. (a) A person who, with the intent to deprive
another person of child custody rights, knowingly or intentionally:
(1) removes another person who is less than eighteen (18) years
of age to a place outside Indiana when the removal violates a
child custody order of a court; or
(2) violates a child custody order of a court by failing to return a
person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age to Indiana;
commits interference with custody, a Level 6 felony. However, the
offense is a Level 5 felony if the other person is less than fourteen (14)
years of age and is not the person's child, and a Level 4 felony if the
offense is committed while armed with a deadly weapon or results in
serious bodily injury to another person.
(b) A person who with the intent to deprive another person of
custody or parenting time rights:
(1) knowingly or intentionally takes;
(2) knowingly or intentionally detains; or
(3) knowingly or intentionally conceals;
a person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age commits
interference with custody, a Class C misdemeanor. However, the
offense is a Class B misdemeanor if the taking, concealment, or
detention is in violation of a court order.
(c) With respect to a violation of this section, a court may consider
as a mitigating circumstance the accused person's return of the other
person in accordance with the child custody order or parenting time
order within seven (7) days after the removal.
(d) The offenses described in this section continue as long as the
child is concealed or detained or both.
(e) If a person is convicted of an offense under this section, a court
may impose against the defendant reasonable costs incurred by a parent
or guardian of the child because of the taking, detention, or
concealment of the child.
(f) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the accused
person:
(1) was threatened; or
(2) reasonably believed the child was threatened;
which resulted in the child not being timely returned to the other parent
resulting in a violation of a child custody order.
As added by P.L.49-1989, SEC.22. Amended by P.L.162-1990,
SEC.1; P.L.68-2005, SEC.60; P.L.164-2007, SEC.2; P.L.158-2013,
SEC.435.
IC 35-42-3.5Chapter 3.5. Human and Sexual Trafficking
35-42-3.5-1.2Promotion of child sexual trafficking; promotion
of sexual trafficking of a younger child 35-42-3.5-5Reporting of human trafficking investigations to
the attorney general
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case:
Melo v. State, 744 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Melo v. State, 744 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 10× “CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we conclude that 'the trial court erred by denying Melo's motion to dismiss two counts of interference with custody, Class D felonies, Ind.Code § 35-42-3-4. Reversed. ROBB and DARDEN, JJ.”
State v. Fettig, 884 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Relying on the ordinary meaning of the word remove, we held that the defendant could not have committed the offense alleged to have occurred between July 9, 1999, and August 12, 1999.”
Vanness v. State, 605 N.E.2d 777 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 7× “Ind. Code 35-42-3-4 (1990) is a recent statute that specifically provides in section 4(e) for the imposition of reasonable *783 costs incurred because of the taking of the child: "If a person is convicted of an offense under this section, a court may impose against the defendant…”
Inlow v. Inlow, 797 N.E.2d 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 35-42-3-3, I.C. § 35-42-3-4, or I.C. § 35-45-9, may bring a civil action for damages against the defendant.”
Leroy Epps & Robert Venable, III v. Creditnet, Inc., 320 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2003).
“Code § 35-42-3-3, Ind.Code § 35-42-3-4, or Ind.Code § 35-45-9, the person may bring a civil action against the person who caused the loss for the following: (1) An amount not to exceed three (3) times the actual damages of the person suffering the loss.”
State v. Maidi, 537 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1995).
· cites it 2× “1994) (regarding interference with custody by parent, permitting a court to order reimbursement "for any reasonable expenses incurred by any person or any governmental entity in locating and returning the child") (emphasis added); see also Vanness v.”
Yoder Grain, Inc. v. Antalis, 722 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “…allows treble damages if a person suffers a pecuniary loss as a result of a violation of IC § 35-43, IC § 35^2-3-3, IC § 35-42-3-4, or IC § 35-45-9. In order to establish a viable claim, a plaintiff must show a violation of one of the specific code sections and that such…”
Sam & Mac, Inc. v. Treat, 783 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“§ 35-42-3-4, or I.C. § 35-45-9, the person may bring a civil action against the person who caused the loss for the following: (1) An amount not to exceed three (8) times the actual damages of the person suffering the loss.”
Matter of Scionti, 630 N.E.2d 1358 (Ind. 1994).
· cites it 4× “[2] Indiana Code Section 35-42-3-4 provides, in relevant part: (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) Removes another person who is less then eighteen (18) years of age to a place outside Indiana when the removal violates a child custody order of court; or (2) Removes…”
Aufderheide v. Ormiston (S.D. Ind. 2025).
· cites it 7× “Code § 34-24-2-1 ("ICVRA"), emanating from an alleged violation of Indiana's Interference with Custody statute, Ind. Code § 35-42-3-4 . Now before the Court is Ms.”
H.S. v. K.M.C., 922 N.E.2d 738 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “…After Mother initiated the instant proceedings in Perry County, Father filed a custody petition in Mississippi. . See Ind.Code § 35-42-3-4.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-3-4(a) — 1 case
Melo v. State, 744 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we conclude that 'the trial court erred by denying Melo's motion to dismiss two counts of interference with custody, Class D felonies, Ind.Code § 35-42-3-4. Reversed. ROBB and DARDEN, JJ.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-3-4(a)(2) — 2 cases
Melo v. State, 744 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we conclude that 'the trial court erred by denying Melo's motion to dismiss two counts of interference with custody, Class D felonies, Ind.Code § 35-42-3-4. Reversed. ROBB and DARDEN, JJ.”
Aufderheide v. Ormiston (S.D. Ind. 2025).
“Code § 34-24-2-1 ("ICVRA"), emanating from an alleged violation of Indiana's Interference with Custody statute, Ind. Code § 35-42-3-4 . Now before the Court is Ms.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-3-4(a2)(2) — 1 case
Melo v. State, 744 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we conclude that 'the trial court erred by denying Melo's motion to dismiss two counts of interference with custody, Class D felonies, Ind.Code § 35-42-3-4. Reversed. ROBB and DARDEN, JJ.”
— Ind. Code § 35-42-3-4(b) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-42-3-4(b)(2) — 1 case
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.