Section 25.031 targets the person who is hired to take a child. It is narrow, it is an inchoate offense, and it sits alongside the more commonly charged interference with child custody.
What the Statute Says
(a) A person commits an offense if the person agrees, for remuneration or the promise of remuneration, to abduct a child younger than 18 years of age by force, threat of force, misrepresentation, stealth, or unlawful entry, knowing that the child is under the care and control of a person having custody or physical possession of the child under a court order, including a temporary order, or under the care and control of another person who is exercising care and control with the consent of a person having custody or physical possession under a court order, including a temporary order.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
The Elements
- An agreement to abduct a child younger than 18.
- For remuneration or the promise of remuneration — payment is an element, not an aggravator.
- By force, threat of force, misrepresentation, stealth, or unlawful entry — the means are specified.
- Knowledge that the child is under the care and control of a person with custody or physical possession under a court order, including a temporary order, or of someone exercising care and control with that person's consent.
The Agreement Completes the Offense
No child need ever be taken. The crime is the agreement. That makes it an inchoate offense like conspiracy or solicitation — and it means these cases are typically built entirely on communications: texts, recorded calls, messaging apps, and the testimony of a cooperating participant.
Who Gets Charged
Not usually the parent. A parent who takes their own child in violation of a custody order is generally charged under Section 25.03. Section 25.031 reaches the third party — the person hired to do it. In practice, defendants include acquaintances, relatives, and occasionally people holding themselves out as recovery or security services, particularly in international custody disputes.
Defenses
No agreement. Venting, hypothetical conversation, or expressions of sympathy are not agreements. The State must prove a genuine meeting of the minds on the specified conduct.
No remuneration. Help offered out of family loyalty or friendship, with no payment or promise of payment, falls outside the statute.
No knowledge of the court order. The knowledge element requires awareness that the child is under court-ordered custody or physical possession. People routinely become involved in family disputes without knowing what orders exist or what they say.
The means element. The agreement must contemplate force, threat of force, misrepresentation, stealth, or unlawful entry. An agreement to pick a child up openly, in the belief it was permitted, does not meet it.
Entrapment. Where the approach came from an undercover officer or an informant, Section 8.06 may apply — and these cases are frequently made by sting.
Withdrawal. Evidence that the accused backed out bears on whether an agreement was ever genuinely formed.
Related
- Section 25.03 — interference with child custody · Section 25.10 — interference with rights of a guardian
- Unlawful restraint (20.02) · Entrapment (8.06)
Charged in Harris County?
Brian Foley is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a former Harris County Felony Chief Prosecutor; Luis Baez is a former Trial Bureau Chief. Call or text (713) 703-1718 for a free, confidential consultation.