x-mas denied, am I right about....

[smtotwo]

my interpretation of this statute?

Statute 767.60 (state of WI)

Any parent, or any person acting pursuant to directions from the parent, who does any of the following is guilty of a Class E Felony

(a) conceals a child from other parent

(ex moved provided no forwarding address)

(b)  doesn't apply to DH's case

(c) After issuance of a temporary or final order specifying joint custody  rights, takes a child from or causes a child to leave the other parent in violation of the custody order or  WITHHOLDS THE CHILD FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS BEYOND THE COURT APPROVED VISITATION PERIOD.

DH's court order reads    HOLIDAYS:    Christmas:
          Respondent dhsll have the children x-mas eve 9 am to 8 pm and shall also have them for the second half of the post-christmas day balance of their school December Holiday break to 6 pm on the day before school recommences.

School Calendar  Thursday December 23rd through sunday January 2nd

Ex refused to answer her phone for DH to pick up the children for x-mas eve, and today when he called to say he was on his way ex stated he could not take the children.

So as of, somewhere around noon tomorrow she will have withheld them for more than 12 hours past court approved visitation.

Does this apply to the ex denying visits?

Or only to DH if he should return them more than 12 hours late?

THANKS A TON!!

DH is going to attempt to pick up kids again tomorrow, or file charges against her.

[socrateaser]

depends on how your custody orders describe visitation and custody, i.e., joint, sole, physical, legal, etc.

Criminal statutes are interpreted narrowly and with lenity towards the defendant, i.e., if the statute says visitation, the court will not imply it to mean custody. So, if your right to have the child is described as a custodial right because you have joint custody, then the defendant/mother cannot be charged with a crime.

Based on what I've read in your post, I don't think the DA will charge mother with violation of 767.60, because it is intended to protect only the rights of (big sigh) the primary custodian.