Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.40.070 (2026)

Custodial interference in the second degree

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A relative of a person is guilty of custodial interference in the second degree if, with the intent to deny access to such person by a parent, guardian, institution, agency, or other person having a lawful right to physical custody of such person, the relative takes, entices, retains, detains, or conceals the person from a parent, guardian, institution, agency, or other person having a lawful right to physical custody of such person. This subsection shall not apply to a parent's noncompliance with a court order making residential provisions for the child.
(2) A parent of a child is guilty of custodial interference in the second degree if: (a) The parent takes, entices, retains, detains, or conceals the child, with the intent to deny access, from the other parent having the lawful right to time with the child pursuant to a court order making residential provisions for the child; or (b) the parent has not complied with the residential provisions of a court-ordered parenting plan after a finding of contempt under RCW 26.09.160(3); or (c) if the court finds that the parent has engaged in a pattern of willful violations of a court order making residential provisions for the child.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2)(b) of this section prohibits conviction of custodial interference in the second degree under subsection (2)(a) or (c) of this section in absence of findings of contempt.
(4)(a) The first conviction of custodial interference in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.
(b) The second or subsequent conviction of custodial interference in the second degree is a class C felony.
[ 2015 c 38 s 3; 2003 c 53 s 66; 1989 c 318 s 2; 1984 c 95 s 2.]

Notes:

Intent—2015 c 38: See note following RCW 9A.40.060.
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Severability—1989 c 318: See note following RCW 26.09.160.
Severability—1984 c 95: See note following RCW 9A.40.060.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: State v. Veliz, 298 P.3d 75 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Veliz, 298 P.3d 75 (Wash. 2013). “318, § 2(2) (emphasis added) (codified as amended at RCW 9A.40.070). The legislature also amended chapter 26.”
State v. Vinyard, 751 P.2d 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “080(1) applicable: Any reasonable expenses incurred in locating or returning a child or incompetent person shall be assessed against a defendant convicted under RCW 9A.”
State v. Veliz (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “318, § 2(2) (emphasis added) (codified as amended at RCW 9A.40.070). The legislature also amended chapter 26.”
Jimma v. City of Seattle Police Dep't (W.D. Wash. 2019). “See RCW 9A.40.070(2) (“A parent of a child is guilty of 8 custodial interference in the second degree if: (a) The parent takes, entices, retains, detains, or 9 conceals the child, with the intent to deny access, from the other parent having the lawful right to 10 time with the…”
State Of Washington, V. Victor Everett Zurbano, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “Zurbano argues that the evidence established only that he retained the child because Klosowski refused to comply with the parenting plan when she refused to exchange the child in public and not that he intended to deny access to the child to a parent with the lawful right to…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.40.070(2) — 3 cases
Jimma v. City of Seattle Police Dep't (W.D. Wash. 2019). “See RCW 9A.40.070(2) (“A parent of a child is guilty of 8 custodial interference in the second degree if: (a) The parent takes, entices, retains, detains, or 9 conceals the child, with the intent to deny access, from the other parent having the lawful right to 10 time with the…”
State Of Washington, V. Victor Everett Zurbano, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “Zurbano argues that the evidence established only that he retained the child because Klosowski refused to comply with the parenting plan when she refused to exchange the child in public and not that he intended to deny access to the child to a parent with the lawful right to…”
State v. Veliz (Wash. 2013). “318, § 2(2) (emphasis added) (codified as amended at RCW 9A.40.070). The legislature also amended chapter 26.”
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.