Committee considers tougher penalties for removing or withholding children in violation of custody orders

Senate Bill 2186, which would expand criminal penalties for removing or withholding a child in violation of a custody decree, drew sharply divided testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Senator David Clemens introduced the bill, saying it would amend current law to cover detaining a child within North Dakota in violation of a custody decree and would remove the existing 72‑hour limit on the offense. Under the bill, Clemens said the first two offenses would be class A misdemeanors and the third a class C felony.

Supporters—many of them parents who described long separations and what they characterized as parental alienation—urged the committee to approve the measure. Todd Peterson and several other witnesses said current law offers little practical tool for law enforcement to prevent or penalize withholding that leaves a parent without access to a child for weeks or months. Robert Garza, who said he authored a comparable Texas law, testified that removing penalties or time limits has left courts unable to deter withholding and alleged that expanded local authority would give officers a toolkit to respond to repeated withholding.

Opponents—including Hallie Peterson and her mother, Lindsey Peterson—told the committee the bill risked criminalizing parents who provide refuge for children fleeing harm. Hallie Peterson described episodes in which she said she and her siblings fled a custodial parent's home because they feared for their safety; she told senators she would be harmed by a provision that could treat such protective actions as criminal. Lindsey Peterson urged the committee to keep a time frame in the statute and warned that removing the 72‑hour limit without a replacement would expose parents to criminal charges for delays caused by weather, travel or emergency circumstances.

Senators pressed witnesses on the practical effects and potential for misuse. Senator Paulson asked whether judges would really send a parent to jail for long periods when shorter penalties exist; witness testimony emphasized the judge’s discretion but flagged the possibility that misdemeanor penalties can carry up to 360 days in jail and said that consequence itself could be used as leverage. Other senators asked how expanding the law would change enforcement in cases where parents move children across town or across state lines.

The committee heard additional witness accounts, including testimony from survivors who linked withholding and false allegations to broader patterns of control and abuse. Supporters argued that the proposed ‘‘three‑strikes’’ approach and removal of the 72‑hour limit would create immediate, enforceable consequences for repeat withholding and better protect children’s relationships with both parents. Opponents asked the committee to add time‑limit guardrails and clarifying language so the statute cannot be weaponized against victims or used to punish brief or emergency delays.

The committee recessed and held a mix of in‑person and online testimony; it took testimony both in favor and opposed and did not vote on the bill that day.