(A) No person, knowing the person is without privilege to do so or being reckless in that regard, shall entice, take, keep, or harbor a person identified in division (A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section from the parent, guardian, or custodian of the person identified in division (A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section:
(1) A child under the age of eighteen, or a child with a mental or physical disability under the age of twenty-one;
(2) A person committed by law to an institution for delinquent, unruly, neglected, abused, or dependent children;
(3) A person committed by law to an institution for persons with mental illnesses or an institution for persons with intellectual disabilities.
(B) No person shall aid, abet, induce, cause, or encourage a child or a ward of the juvenile court who has been committed to the custody of any person, department, or public or private institution to leave the custody of that person, department, or institution without legal consent.
(C) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of enticing or taking under division (A)(1) of this section, that the actor reasonably believed that the actor's conduct was necessary to preserve the child's health or safety. It is an affirmative defense to a charge of keeping or harboring under division (A) of this section, that the actor in good faith gave notice to law enforcement or judicial authorities within a reasonable time after the child or committed person came under the actor's shelter, protection, or influence.
(D)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interference with custody.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this division, a violation of division (A)(1) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the child who is the subject of a violation of division (A)(1) of this section is removed from the state or if the offender previously has been convicted of an offense under this section, a violation of division (A)(1) of this section is a felony of the fifth degree. If the child who is the subject of a violation of division (A)(1) of this section suffers physical harm as a result of the violation, a violation of division (A)(1) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree.
(3) A violation of division (A)(2) or (3) of this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree.
(4) A violation of division (B) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree. Each day of violation of division (B) of this section is a separate offense.
Last updated March 10, 2023 at 11:19 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: State v. Sager, 2019 Ohio 135 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Sager, 2019 Ohio 135 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 12ד{¶1} Defendant-appellant Lakysha Sager appeals the decision of the Hamilton County Municipal Court denying her second application to seal records of her convictions for interference with custody, in violation of R.C. 2919.23. Sager had taken her then nine- and 11-year-old…”
State v. Villamor-Goubeaux, 2016 Ohio 7420 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 19דLegal Effect of “Custody” {¶ 12} The first assignment of error states: The trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motions [sic] to dismiss and failing to find that custody is an essential element of the statute (O.R.C. §2919.23). {¶ 13} Under this assignment of error,…”
State v. Wright, 2016 Ohio 7654 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5דR.C. 2919.23(A) provides that “[n]o person, knowing the person is without privilege to do so or being reckless in that regard, shall entice, Athens App.”
Brown v. Denny, 594 N.E.2d 1008 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5ד” R.C. 2919.23, interference with custody, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “(A) No person, knowing he is without privilege to do so or being reckless in that regard, shall entice, take, keep, or harbor any of the following persons from his parent, guardian, or…”
Cleveland v. Taylor, 2021 Ohio 584 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2ד222, division (B) of section 2919.23, or section 2919.24 of the Revised Code[.”
State v. Wilson, 2022 Ohio 504 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “04; interference with custody in violation of R.C. 2919.23; contributing to unruliness or delinquency in violation of R.”
State v. Groves, 2022 Ohio 443 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3ד12(A)(1), a third-degree felony; Count 6 - interference with custody, in violation of R.C. 2919.23(A)(1), a fourth-degree felony; Count 7 - gross abuse of a corpse, in violation of R.”
State v. Novotny, 2013 Ohio 2321 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4ד{¶1} Thaddeus Novotny appeals his conviction in the Summit County Common Pleas Court for interference with custody under Revised Code Section 2919.23(A)(1). For the following reasons, this Court affirms.”
State v. Armstrong, 2016 Ohio 7841 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “02(A)(4)(c) (involving a Schedule I or II controlled substance, to wit: meth); interference with custody, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.23(A)(1); endangering children, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of 2929.”
State v. Munoz, 2006 NMSC 5 (N.M. 2006). “§ 2C:13-4(c)(l) (2005) (requiring a reasonable belief); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2919.23(c) (1997) (requiring a good faith and reasonable belief); Vt.”
State v. Barnes, 2023 Ohio 353 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “04(A) and (B)(3); Interference with Custody (Count 8), a misdemeanor of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2919.23(A)(1) and (D)(1) and (2); and Furnishing Beer or Intoxicating Liquor to Underage Person (Counts 9-10), a misdemeanor in violation of R.”
State v. Stiver, 2024 Ohio 65 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “147(A); interference with custody under R.C. 2919.23(A)(1); domestic violence under R.”
Brown v. Denny, 594 N.E.2d 1008 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “” R.C. 2919.23, interference with custody, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “(A) No person, knowing he is without privilege to do so or being reckless in that regard, shall entice, take, keep, or harbor any of the following persons from his parent, guardian, or…”
State v. Sager, 2019 Ohio 135 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶1} Defendant-appellant Lakysha Sager appeals the decision of the Hamilton County Municipal Court denying her second application to seal records of her convictions for interference with custody, in violation of R.C. 2919.23. Sager had taken her then nine- and 11-year-old…”
State v. Wright, 2016 Ohio 7654 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “R.C. 2919.23(A) provides that “[n]o person, knowing the person is without privilege to do so or being reckless in that regard, shall entice, Athens App.”
State v. Villamor-Goubeaux, 2016 Ohio 7420 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Legal Effect of “Custody” {¶ 12} The first assignment of error states: The trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motions [sic] to dismiss and failing to find that custody is an essential element of the statute (O.R.C. §2919.23). {¶ 13} Under this assignment of error,…”
State v. Wright, 2016 Ohio 7654 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “R.C. 2919.23(A) provides that “[n]o person, knowing the person is without privilege to do so or being reckless in that regard, shall entice, Athens App.”
State v. Sager, 2019 Ohio 135 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶1} Defendant-appellant Lakysha Sager appeals the decision of the Hamilton County Municipal Court denying her second application to seal records of her convictions for interference with custody, in violation of R.C. 2919.23. Sager had taken her then nine- and 11-year-old…”
State v. Groves, 2022 Ohio 443 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “12(A)(1), a third-degree felony; Count 6 - interference with custody, in violation of R.C. 2919.23(A)(1), a fourth-degree felony; Count 7 - gross abuse of a corpse, in violation of R.”
State v. Novotny, 2013 Ohio 2321 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶1} Thaddeus Novotny appeals his conviction in the Summit County Common Pleas Court for interference with custody under Revised Code Section 2919.23(A)(1). For the following reasons, this Court affirms.”
State v. Munoz, 2006 NMSC 5 (N.M. 2006). “§ 2C:13-4(c)(l) (2005) (requiring a reasonable belief); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2919.23(c) (1997) (requiring a good faith and reasonable belief); Vt.”
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.