Abduction Defense Attorneys

An abduction charge in Florida is serious, and where the State decides to bring the case (kidnapping, false imprisonment, or interference with custody) determines almost everything about it: the maximum sentence, the elements the State has to prove, and the defenses available to you. These cases are also often charged out of misunderstood situations — a tense argument, a parental dispute over a child, a moment where someone felt they could not leave the room. The defense starts with insisting the right statute is in play, with the right facts, and with the constitutional protections that apply to every felony case. Call us at (386) 255-1400 24 hours a day for a confidential consultation.

The three Florida abduction-related statutes

Why the charge selection matters

These three statutes look similar from a distance but apply to very different conduct, and the State sometimes overreaches in the initial charge. The differences shape the defense:

• Specific intent is what separates kidnapping from false imprisonment. The State must prove kidnapping's enumerated intent (ransom, felony facilitation, terror, or governmental interference) beyond a reasonable doubt. Without it, the case may still be false imprisonment, but it is not a first-degree felony.
• Custodial standing is what separates interference with custody from the other two. Where the conduct involves a child and the actor is a parent or person with custodial rights, the statute that fits is § 787.03 (or no statute at all when there is no court order in place), not § 787.01 or § 787.02.
• The "confinement" element does the work in close cases. Florida case law looks at whether the alleged confinement was meaningful, separate from the assault or battery already charged, and not merely incidental to another offense. Where the confinement is alleged to be incidental to a different charge, the kidnapping or false-imprisonment count may not stand independently.

When the case is a parental or family dispute

A significant share of § 787.01–.03 charges grow out of family situations. A parent who keeps a child past a scheduled exchange. A non-custodial parent who takes a child to a different city. A grandparent who refuses to return a grandchild after a weekend visit. An argument in a vehicle where one person locks the doors. None of those are automatically crimes, but each can become one if the wrong elements are present.

The interference-with-custody statute (§ 787.03) is the one most often misapplied in these situations. It generally requires either a violation of an existing court order or knowledge that no court order vests sole custody in the actor. It also carries specific affirmative defenses — most notably, that the action was reasonably believed necessary to protect the minor from imminent threat of physical abuse. Establishing that defense, and getting the parental-rights context in front of the court early, is often what separates a dismissal or reduction from a felony conviction.

The case law on confinement and intent keeps developing in Florida. The defense should reflect it.

The Florida appellate courts have continued to refine what counts as "confinement" and what suffices for the kidnapping-specific intent, with the Faison incidental-confinement framework remaining the backbone of many defense arguments. A defense built on an older opinion can miss how the current State Attorney is framing similar facts. We work each § 787 case on the current statute, the current Florida case law, and the parental-rights and family-court context where it applies.