Is it kidnapping?

[xoferew]

Hypothetical questions I’ve been wondering about:

You come across a 3 year old lost child on the street (cannot give her full name/address/any useful information). Let’s even imagine the child is calling out for her mother in an obscure language which you happen to know, so it makes sense for you to be the one to help her. There is no police officer in sight. You don’t have your cell phone on you. Obviously if she is in immediate danger (standing in the middle of traffic) you can legally move her.

Can you take her with you to find a phone? Does it matter if she is willing or unwilling to go with you? If you take her into a store and her mother comes looking for her, can you be charged with kidnapping, or is it a good samaritan thing? Do you have to move a certain distance before it is kidnapping? Maybe you just go five feet into a store with her, but she is no longer visible from the street. Maybe you want to get her inside because it is so hot/cold/pouring rain outside. Maybe she describes running out of a store and from her description you recognize that it’s a store two blocks away, and you take her back there.

Can you buy her something to eat to cheer her up? Can you buy her something to eat if she cries that she’s been lost for hours and is really hungry? What if she has an allergic reaction to what you feed her?

Once you have initiated contact with her and determined that she has been separated from her parent, is it illegal to then walk away from her? What if you walk away and she follows you. Could that be kidnapping?

I’m in the US but I’m curious to hear about any relevant laws anywhere.

[dolphinboy]

I think it depends on the particular circumstances.

Assuming you were arrested for kidnapping, which I think is highly unlikely, a district attorney would have to look at the facts to determine if what you did was reasonable or not. Did you attempt to get help or did you just pick up the kid and disappear for a few hours? If it was me I would find someone else immediately so there would be no question about what happened while the child was with me.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

I’m not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.

Unless you cross state lines, rendering it a Federal offense, kidnapping is usually dealt with under state laws. In Ohio, here’s the relevant part of the law:

*R.C. §2905.01. Kidnapping.
(A) No person, by force, threat, or deception, or, in the case of a victim under the age of thirteen or mentally incompetent, by any means, shall remove another from the place where the other person is found or restrain the liberty of the other person, for any of the following purposes:

(1) To hold for ransom, or as a shield or hostage;
(2) To facilitate the commission of any felony or flight thereafter;
(3) To terrorize, or to inflict serious physical harm on the victim or another;
(4) To engage in sexual activity, as defined in section 2907.01 of the Revised Code, with the victim against the victim’s will;
(5) To hinder, impede, or obstruct a function of government, or to force any action or concession on the part of governmental authority;
(6) To hold in a condition of involuntary servitude. *

As a good Samaritan, you don’t have a prohibited purpose, so ideally it is very unlikely that you would charged, let alone convicted. Prosecutors in Ohio have broad discretion as to what cases to present to the grand jury, however.

Generally speaking, I think you’ll want to move the child as little as possible to keep her safe and to ensure that it will be apparent to others that you are acting in a helpful way. I wouldn’t suggest that you take her anywhere against her will; even with the purest of motives, a screaming child which is not yours will draw attention you don’t want. Better to stay put and ask passersby to call the police for you.

You may buy her something to eat, but I wouldn’t. Let a parent, or the authorities, feed her if they wish. You never know of which allergies or cultural taboos you might run afoul.

You do not (except in Minnesota and Vermont, IIRC) have a duty to aid someone in danger, so you may legally (if not morally) walk away from the child at any time without rendering aid, if you wish.

[xoferew]

Thanks, that’s interesting. It sounds like as long as you use common sense you’ll be off the hook.

I used to work at a preschool in Ohio and at one of the mandated child abuse training sessions the presenter asked what should be done when a parent shows up to pick up their child and the parent is so drunk they can hardly walk, and they want to toss the toddler in the backseat and drive him home. The correct answer was to let the parent proceed if they couldn’t be dissuaded because anything else was kidnapping. I later wondered, could you get away with not handing over the child if you quickly called the other parent and they said you should by no means let the drunk parent take the kid…

[dolphinboy]

@xoferew

Thanks, that’s interesting. It sounds like as long as you use common sense you’ll be off the hook.

I used to work at a preschool in Ohio and at one of the mandated child abuse training sessions the presenter asked what should be done when a parent shows up to pick up their child and the parent is so drunk they can hardly walk, and they want to toss the toddler in the backseat and drive him home. The correct answer was to let the parent proceed if they couldn’t be dissuaded because anything else was kidnapping. I later wondered, could you get away with not handing over the child if you quickly called the other parent and they said you should by no means let the drunk parent take the kid…

In that situation I would have someone quiety call the authorities and then stall the inebriated parent as long as possible. Once the police arrive they can then arrest the parent for DUI if in fact he or she is intoxicated.

[Contrapuntal]

@xoferew

Thanks, that’s interesting. It sounds like as long as you use common sense you’ll be off the hook.

I used to work at a preschool in Ohio and at one of the mandated child abuse training sessions the presenter asked what should be done when a parent shows up to pick up their child and the parent is so drunk they can hardly walk, and they want to toss the toddler in the backseat and drive him home. The correct answer was to let the parent proceed if they couldn’t be dissuaded because anything else was kidnapping. I later wondered, could you get away with not handing over the child if you quickly called the other parent and they said you should by no means let the drunk parent take the kid…

I don’t care if I lose my job and/or get arrested for kidnapping. There is no way in hell I am letting that parent drive away with the kid. And I would do everything I could to keep him from driving as well.

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

Since it’s been pretty reasonably answered, I’ll submit that my first reaction to reading the OP was “Need answer fast?”

[Joey_P]

@Contrapuntal

I don’t care if I lose my job and/or get arrested for kidnapping. There is no way in hell I am letting that parent drive away with the kid. And I would do everything I could to keep him from driving as well.

And more then likely the school expects the teachers to do just that the but they need to cover their asses. My WAG is that that came about because some district had (at the time of that seminar) recently been sued for kidnapping in a case just like that and since then the official policy is that as long as it’s the legal parent, you always hand the kid over.

At least this way they can fire the teacher, tell the parent/lawyer that it’s their written policy to send the child home with the parent even if they are drunk (although it’s probably not worded quite like that and then they are off the hook.

I have to agree though, I’d probably walk the kid back inside (grab some fellow teachers for moral/physical support if the parent followed me in) and call the police.

[Gedd]

@xoferew

Thanks, that’s interesting. It sounds like as long as you use common sense you’ll be off the hook.

I used to work at a preschool in Ohio and at one of the mandated child abuse training sessions the presenter asked what should be done when a parent shows up to pick up their child and the parent is so drunk they can hardly walk, and they want to toss the toddler in the backseat and drive him home. The correct answer was to let the parent proceed if they couldn’t be dissuaded because anything else was kidnapping. I later wondered, could you get away with not handing over the child if you quickly called the other parent and they said you should by no means let the drunk parent take the kid…

I used to work at a preschool in Ohio and at one of the mandated child abuse training sessions the presenter asked what should be done when a parent shows up to pick up their child and the parent is so drunk they can hardly walk, and they want to toss the toddler in the backseat and drive him home. The correct answer was to let the parent proceed if they couldn’t be dissuaded because anything else was kidnapping. I later wondered, could you get away with not handing over the child if you quickly called the other parent and they said you should by no means let the drunk parent take the kid…
[/QUOTE]

That actually happened to my mom, oddly enough when she worked at a preschool in Ohio. :dubious:

It was in the late 80s so they were probably a bit more lax than today. The mom smelled of beer and was obviously drunk. (Who drinks that much by 3:30?) The teachers refused to let her have the kid. I guess there was a lot of shouting and another parent, a guy, kind of sided with my mom for some physical reinforcement. The lady said she was going to go home and call the cops. My mom said, “We’ll call them for you as soon as you leave.”

Sure enough as soon as the lady left my mom called the cops to let them know there was a drunk driver on the road. I think the dad ended up coming to get and possibly keep) the kid since they were divorced.

Probably couldn’t get away with that these days though.

[constanze]

@xoferew

I used to work at a preschool in Ohio and at one of the mandated child abuse training sessions the presenter asked what should be done when a parent shows up to pick up their child and the parent is so drunk they can hardly walk, and they want to toss the toddler in the backseat and drive him home. The correct answer was to let the parent proceed if they couldn’t be dissuaded because anything else was kidnapping. I later wondered, could you get away with not handing over the child if you quickly called the other parent and they said you should by no means let the drunk parent take the kid…

I don’t want to cast aspersions, but either the presenter misunderstood the law, or you have very strange/idiotic laws in your jurisdiction. A school or child care center is by it’s nature allowed to keep children and make decisions for them. How in the world can that be construed and prosecuted as kidnapping in any sane place?

In fact, in Germany, the teachers would be more likely on the hook for allowing a drunk person to go driving - the courts are saying you are required to take steps to prevent that. There was a case many years back where a husband was drunk and the wife got into the car with the kids after some protesting despite this. When the husband caused an accident which injured the kids, not only was he charged, but the wife also, because the court argued it was her duty to look out for the welfare of the children, and even if it’s inconvenient to be stranded in some remote place while the inebriated husband drives off, she should not have gotten into the car with minors under her responsibility.

[Markxxx]

The problem with situations like this is people often fail to realize the police CAN detain you. In fact you can be held without charges for a period of time, usually 24 hours to 72 hours depending on the place.

A lot of time people don’t want to get involved and say, “I’m not going to be charged with kidnapping,” and ignore it.

Let’s say you have an outstanding warrant on a minor charge, like parking tickets. If you help the little girl, the cops may detain you briefly enough to run a check on you, and there you go, a warrant for unpaid parking tickets.

A company lawyer’s job is to keep the company AWAY from lawsuits not to do the correct thing, as in the case of the drunk driver.

You deny a parent access to a child and you can have a lawsuit on your hand. It doesn’t matter whether you win or lose you still have to go to court which costs.

It’s like pretty much every resturaunt says “We cannot serve alcohol to minors, even if the parent OK’s it.” Well that’s not exactly true. The laws vary from state to state and they are so complex it’s easier for everyone to have a blanket rule, “Company policy says…” and make the company policy fit the widest acceptable standard.

But if you’re a server in a resturaunt it’s easier to say “It’s against the law…” rather than “Company policy forbids…”

[muldoonthief]

@constanze

I don’t want to cast aspersions, but either the presenter misunderstood the law, or you have very strange/idiotic laws in your jurisdiction. A school or child care center is by it’s nature allowed to keep children and make decisions for them. How in the world can that be construed and prosecuted as kidnapping in any sane place?

But a school or child care center derives its authority to keep children and make decisions for them from the parents who entrust their child there. As soon as I, as a parent, decide my child will no longer be attending said school or child care center, their authority ends immediately.

I’d fully expect a teacher to report certain behaviors by a parent to the police (in fact, that’s mandated), but preventing a parent from taking a child home? That’s an awfully difficult thing for a school to do.

[Contrapuntal]

@Markxxx

You deny a parent access to a child and you can have a lawsuit on your hand. It doesn’t matter whether you win or lose you still have to go to court which costs.

Or, you can let the drunk parent drive away with the child and you can have a child’s death on your hands. Or worse.

[xoferew]

The presenter said the best response was probably to tell the drunk parent, “If you drive away with your child, the police will be waiting in your driveway when you get home.” Hopefully that would persuade the parent to let you figure out alternate transportation.

She said it had happened to her and the parent finally gave in. Hey Gedd, maybe your mom was the presenter!?

[Cayuga]

@Contrapuntal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markxxx
You deny a parent access to a child and you can have a lawsuit on your hand. It doesn’t matter whether you win or lose you still have to go to court which costs.

Or, you can let the drunk parent drive away with the child and you can have a child’s death on your hands. Or worse.

I think you missed the sentence just before that one in Markxxx’s post.

“A company lawyer’s job is to keep the company AWAY from lawsuits not to do the correct thing, as in the case of the drunk driver.
You deny a parent access to a child and you can have a lawsuit on your hand.”

In other words, the lawyer wasn’t telling employees the right thing to do, the moral thing to do, the most practical thing to do, the best thing to do for the child, or the best thing to do for the employees’ consciences. The lawyer was telling employees what to do in order to expose the employer to the least financial risk.

It sucks, but it is the lawyer’s job.

[Contrapuntal]

@Cayuga

I think you missed the sentence just before that one in Markxxx’s post.

“A company lawyer’s job is to keep the company AWAY from lawsuits not to do the correct thing, as in the case of the drunk driver.
You deny a parent access to a child and you can have a lawsuit on your hand.”

In other words, the lawyer wasn’t telling employees the right thing to do, the moral thing to do, the most practical thing to do, the best thing to do for the child, or the best thing to do for the employees’ consciences. The lawyer was telling employees what to do in order to expose the employer to the least financial risk.

It sucks, but it is the lawyer’s job.

I didn’t miss it. My response stands. I can’t imagine weighing the cost of a possible lawsuit vs. the cost of a possible dead child and choosing the latter.

[BigT]

@Contrapuntal

I didn’t miss it. My response stands. I can’t imagine weighing the cost of a possible lawsuit vs. the cost of a possible dead child and choosing the latter.

Agreed. There is no reason “doing your job” is an excuse for allowing something that immoral to happen. It’s very frustrating that such people even exist. It really doesn’t help the reputation of the legal profession, that’s for sure.

[Guinastasia]

@BigT

Agreed. There is no reason “doing your job” is an excuse for allowing something that immoral to happen. It’s very frustrating that such people even exist. It really doesn’t help the reputation of the legal profession, that’s for sure.

And I hate to even drag this up, but that almost smacks of the whole, “I was just following orders…” An exaggeration, maybe. But it still stands. Saying, “well, that’s what I was told to do” – that’s fucking weak when we’re getting into a life or death situation.

I think in the case of the OP, I would take the kid into a restaurant or public place, have him sit with an employee, and try to contact the police and then sit with the child while we waited.

[Cayuga]

OK, just to clear my own name here, I agree with the three of you. If I were an employee of the school, I would ignore the presenter’s instructions.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the presenter expected his instructions to be ignored. The reason the state (was it a public school?) had him give those instructions was so that their own A was Ced and they could hang the teacher out to dry when s/he did the right thing, if doing the right thing led to a lawsuit.

And again, yes, it sucks.

[xoferew]

Just for clarification, the presenter was not a lawyer, but a person certified by the state to give child abuse/neglect workshops to child care providers informing them what the law stated in various cases as well as what signs to look for. The school was a private preschool. I don’t see who could be wanting to hang the teacher out to dry since the school had no control over what would be said by the presenter and the presenter didn’t have any relationship with the school.

Of course the presenters always say what you should do in an ideal world. My last infectious disease workshop taught us that children should wear gloves to use play dough.

But yeah, I wouldn’t hand over the kid. A question in my mind is, would it be a lawsuit, or could I be taken to jail?