## Facts

- Orang Fabriz and Lila Mirjavadi, married and separated, had a child, Saba; a court order gave Fabriz three hours per week of supervised visitation due to domestic-violence history and flight risk.
- Anthony Vakilzaden, Fabriz’s uncle, allegedly helped Fabriz obtain one-way plane tickets for Fabriz and Saba to travel to Istanbul.
- During a scheduled supervised visit at a mall, Fabriz allegedly evaded the supervisor and left with Saba.
- Vakilzaden allegedly assisted Fabriz’s effort to leave the country and interfered with the subsequent police investigation to prevent Fabriz’s detention.
- The state charged Vakilzaden with custodial interference in the first degree and conspiracy to commit custodial interference in the first degree.
- The trial court dismissed the information, concluding that because Fabriz was the child’s father and a joint legal custodian, custodial interference could not be charged as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether a parent’s joint legal custody categorically precludes criminal liability for custodial interference when the parent removes the child in violation of a court-ordered custody/visitation arrangement.
2. Whether third-party assistance to such conduct can support a conspiracy charge to commit custodial interference.
3. Whether a prior civil decision limiting tort liability for “child abduction” by a joint custodian controls interpretation of the custodial interference criminal statute.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that joint legal custody does not create immunity from prosecution for custodial interference when the conduct violates operative custody or visitation orders.
- The court held that the prior civil case did not control interpretation of the criminal statute and could not be extended to bar criminal charges.
- Because custodial interference could be charged against the abducting parent despite joint legal custody, the allegations were legally sufficient to allow prosecution of Vakilzaden for conspiracy to commit custodial interference.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal custodial interference is measured against lawful custodial rights established by court orders, including restrictions on visitation and physical custody.
- A parent with joint legal custody may lack legal authority to remove or keep a child from the other parent’s physical custody in contravention of a court’s custody/visitation order.
- Joint legal custodial status does not categorically defeat charges under Connecticut’s custodial interference statute when the charged conduct violates a court-ordered custody arrangement.
- Third parties who knowingly agree to and assist custodial interference may be prosecuted for conspiracy when the underlying custodial interference offense is legally cognizable.

## Conclusion

The court held that a joint legal custodian’s violation of court-ordered custody or visitation limits can constitute custodial interference and that third parties who facilitate that violation may face conspiracy liability; the trial court therefore erred in dismissing the charges against Vakilzaden.


State v. Vakilzaden, 251 Conn. 656, 742 A.2d 767 (Conn. 1999)