Utah Code » Title 76, Chapter 5 — Offenses Against the Individual; part 76-5-3 — Kidnapping, Trafficking, And Smuggling
Utah Code

Utah Code § 76-5-303 (2026)

Custodial interference

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this section:
"Child" means an individual under 18 years old.
"Custody" means court-ordered physical custody entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
"Visitation" means court-ordered parent-time or visitation entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Terms defined in Section 76-1-101.5 apply to this section.
An actor who is entitled to custody of a child commits custodial interference if, during a period of time when another individual is entitled to visitation of the child, the actor takes, entices, conceals, detains, or withholds the child from the individual entitled to visitation of the child, with the intent to interfere with the visitation of the child.
An actor who is entitled to visitation of a child commits custodial interference if, during a period of time when the individual is not entitled to visitation of the child, the actor takes, entices, conceals, detains, or withholds the child from an individual who is entitled to custody of the child, with the intent to interfere with the custody of the child.
A violation of Subsection (2) is a class B misdemeanor.
Notwithstanding Subsection (3)(a), a violation of Subsection (2) is a class A misdemeanor if the actor:
commits custodial interference; and
has been convicted of custodial interference at least twice in the two-year period immediately preceding the day on which the commission of custodial interference described in Subsection (3)(b)(i) occurs.
Notwithstanding Subsection (3)(a) or (b), a violation of Subsection (2) is a felony of the third degree if, during the course of the custodial interference, the actor removes, causes the removal, or directs the removal of the child from the state.
In addition to the affirmative defenses described in Section 76-5-305, it is an affirmative defense to the crime of custodial interference that:
the action is consented to by the individual whose custody or visitation of the child was interfered with; or
the action is based on a reasonable belief that the action is necessary to protect a child from abuse, including sexual abuse; and
before engaging in the action, the actor reports the actor's intention to engage in the action, and the basis for the belief described in Subsection (4)(b)(i), to the Division of Child and Family Services or law enforcement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: Nielsen v. Nielsen, 620 P.2d 511 (Utah 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nielsen v. Nielsen, 620 P.2d 511 (Utah 1980). · cites it 8× “Defendant cites Section 76-5-303, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, of the Criminal Code, which deals with the crime of custodial interference, a class B misdemeanor, as establishing the public policy of this State.”
State v. Diaz, 2002 UT App 288 (Utah Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-302 (Supp.2001); see also Utah Code Ann.”
Carter v. Carter, 470 S.E.2d 193 (W. Va. 1996). “§ 16-5-45 (Michie 1987); Idaho Code § 18-4506 (1995); Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-303 (1995). W.Va.Code 61-2-14d (1984) criminalizes the concealment or removal of a minor child from his or her custodian or from the person entitled to visitation.”
State v. Luckie, 901 P.2d 205 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). “The defendant in McGirr was convicted under a California statute that at the time punished a person having a right of custody of the child who maliciously takes, detains, conceals, or entices away that child within or without the state, without good cause, and with the intent to…”
Smith v. Eley, 675 F. Supp. 1301 (D. Utah 1987). · cites it 2× “Thus, in a situation like this where both parties claim custody as of right, a reasonable officer must know that he may not assist in any change of custody absent direction from the court.”
State v. Smith, 764 P.2d 997 (Utah Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 20× “MEMORANDUM DECISION PER CURIAM: The State appeals the dismissal of its information, filed in the Sixth Circuit Court, charging the defendant Roger Smith with custodial interference under Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-303 (1) (1988). We affirm the dismissal.”
Smith v. Eley, 675 F. Supp. 1301 (D. Utah 1987). · cites it 2× “Thus, in a situation like this where both parties claim custody as of right, a reasonable officer must know that he may not assist in any change of custody absent direction from the court.”
Blanke v. Bd. of Pardons, 2020 UT 16 (Utah 2020). · cites it 3× “1(2) (“Violation of Section 76-5-303 is not a violation of this section.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-303(1) — 2 cases
Nielsen v. Nielsen, 620 P.2d 511 (Utah 1980). “Defendant cites Section 76-5-303, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, of the Criminal Code, which deals with the crime of custodial interference, a class B misdemeanor, as establishing the public policy of this State.”
State v. Smith, 764 P.2d 997 (Utah Ct. App. 1988). “MEMORANDUM DECISION PER CURIAM: The State appeals the dismissal of its information, filed in the Sixth Circuit Court, charging the defendant Roger Smith with custodial interference under Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-303 (1) (1988). We affirm the dismissal.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-303(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Smith, 764 P.2d 997 (Utah Ct. App. 1988). “MEMORANDUM DECISION PER CURIAM: The State appeals the dismissal of its information, filed in the Sixth Circuit Court, charging the defendant Roger Smith with custodial interference under Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-303 (1) (1988). We affirm the dismissal.”
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.