What is agreement to abduct a child under Texas law?
Texas Penal Code § 25.031, titled “Agreement to Abduct from Custody,” makes it a state jail felony to agree, for remuneration or the promise of remuneration, to abduct a child younger than 18 by force, threat of force, misrepresentation, stealth, or unlawful entry, knowing the child is under a custodian’s court-ordered care or control. The crime is the agreement, not the abduction.
Agreement to abduct a child from custody is defined in Texas Penal Code § 25.031, titled “Agreement to Abduct from Custody.” It sits in Chapter 25 of the Penal Code, the chapter on offenses against the family. The statute provides that a person commits an offense if the person agrees, for remuneration or the promise of remuneration, to abduct a child younger than 18 years of age by force, threat of force, misrepresentation, stealth, or unlawful entry, knowing that the child is under the care and control of a person having custody or physical possession of the child under a court order, including a temporary order, or under the care and control of another person who is exercising care and control with the consent of a person having custody or physical possession under a court order.
Read that language carefully, because the wording is what separates this charge from a routine custody dispute. The crime is the agreement — the deal — not the abduction. A person can violate § 25.031 the moment they strike a paid bargain to go take a child by force or trickery, even if no one ever lays a hand on the child. That is unusual. Most criminal statutes punish completed conduct or, at minimum, an attempt that comes dangerously close to the result. Section 25.031 reaches back to the agreement stage, which is why it functions as a specialized, offense-specific conspiracy statute aimed squarely at custodial abductions for hire.
- An agreement — a meeting of the minds
- The accused must have actually agreed to abduct the child. A vague conversation, an angry statement made in frustration, or an idea floated but never accepted is not an agreement. The State has to show a real bargain, not loose talk. People going through bitter custody fights often say things in anger they never intend to act on.
- Remuneration or the promise of remuneration
- The agreement has to be connected to payment or the promise of payment. Money does not have to have changed hands, but the deal must have a compensation component. A purely emotional favor between relatives or friends, with no money and no promise of money, falls outside this section.
- An unlawful means — § 25.031
- The agreed-upon method must be force, threat of force, misrepresentation, stealth, or unlawful entry. If the plan was to act openly, lawfully, and with consent, this element is not satisfied even if every other piece is present. Distinguishing a lawful retrieval from an unlawful one is frequently the decisive issue.
- Knowledge of court-ordered custody
- The accused must know the child is under the care or control of a person who has custody or physical possession of the child under a court order, or of someone exercising care with that custodian’s consent. A person who genuinely did not know a custody order existed has a direct attack on this element.
Three features of the text drive every § 25.031 case: the agreement must be tied to remuneration or the promise of remuneration; the agreed-upon method has to be one of the listed unlawful means; and the accused must know the child is in someone’s court-ordered custody. The statute has been on the books since 1987 and was amended in 1993 and again by the 80th Legislature in 2007. It is one of a cluster of Chapter 25 family offenses — interference with child custody (§ 25.03), enticing a child (§ 25.04), and the sale or purchase of a child (§ 25.08) — that the Legislature built to handle the different ways an adult can wrongfully separate a child from a lawful custodian. Section 25.031 is the one that targets the for-hire promoter, the person who agrees to be paid to do the taking.
What are the penalties for agreement to abduct a child?
Under § 25.031(b), agreement to abduct a child from custody is a state jail felony, punishable under Penal Code § 12.35 by 180 days to 2 years in a state jail facility plus a fine up to $10,000. Related conduct can be charged as kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping, which carry far higher ranges.
Under § 25.031(b), the offense is a state jail felony. A state jail felony in Texas is punishable under Penal Code § 12.35 by confinement in a state jail facility for not less than 180 days and not more than two years, plus a fine of up to $10,000. The table below puts the range next to neighboring custody and kidnapping offenses so you can see where this charge sits.
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Confinement range | Fine cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreement to abduct from custody | § 25.031 | State jail felony | 180 days – 2 years | Up to $10,000 |
| Interference with child custody | § 25.03 | State jail felony | 180 days – 2 years | Up to $10,000 |
| Kidnapping | § 20.03 | Third-degree felony | 2 – 10 years | Up to $10,000 |
| Aggravated kidnapping | § 20.04 | First-degree felony | 5 – 99 years or life | Up to $10,000 |
A few practical points about that range. A state jail felony is not eligible for the kind of “3g” parole restrictions reserved for the most serious violent crimes, and judges have real discretion at sentencing, including the option of community supervision (probation) and, in appropriate cases, deferred adjudication. But a state jail felony is still a felony. It carries the lifelong baggage of a felony record unless the case is resolved without a conviction. And the surrounding facts matter enormously: if the underlying plan involved a weapon, a threat of serious harm, or an actual taking, prosecutors can and do charge kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping in addition to or instead of § 25.031, and those offenses carry dramatically higher ranges, as the table shows. One of the first jobs of the defense is to keep a case from sliding up that ladder.
Elements the State must prove
To convict under § 25.031, the State must prove an agreement, made for remuneration or the promise of remuneration, to abduct a child under 18, by an enumerated unlawful means, with knowledge of the court-ordered custody — each beyond a reasonable doubt. Every element is a separate place where the case can break down.
To convict under § 25.031, the State must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt. Every element is a separate place where the case can break down.
- An agreement
- The accused must have actually agreed — reached a meeting of the minds — to abduct the child. A vague conversation, an angry statement made in frustration, or an idea floated but never accepted is not an agreement. The State has to show a real bargain, not loose talk.
- For remuneration or the promise of remuneration
- The agreement has to be connected to payment or the promise of payment. Money does not have to have changed hands, but the deal must have a compensation component. Where there is no money and no promise of money, this element fails.
- To abduct a child younger than 18
- The object of the agreement must be a child under 18. The plan has to be to abduct — to take the child away — not merely to visit, speak with, or transport the child with permission.
- By an unlawful means
- The agreed-upon method must be force, threat of force, misrepresentation, stealth, or unlawful entry. If the plan was to act openly, lawfully, and with consent, this element is not satisfied even if every other piece is present.
- Knowledge of court-ordered custody
- The accused must know the child is under the care or control of a person who has custody or physical possession of the child under a court order, or of someone exercising care with that custodian’s consent. A person who genuinely did not know a custody order existed has a direct attack on this element.
Because the heart of the offense is intent and the content of an agreement, § 25.031 cases tend to rise or fall on what was said, to whom, and what was meant. Texas courts have long stressed that custodial-interference offenses in Chapter 25 protect the rights of the lawful custodian. In interpreting the related enticing statute, the Court of Criminal Appeals explained that “[c]ustody of a child connotes the right to establish the child’s domicile and includes the elements of immediate and direct care and control of the child, together with provisions for its needs,” and that the person “offended against is not the minor but the parent of the minor who thus loses the privilege of the society, and the custody, care, control and services of such minor.” Cunyus v. State, 727 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (as discussed in Friedsam v. State, 373 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012)). That framing matters for the defense: the question is always whether the agreed-upon plan would actually have invaded a lawful custodian’s court-protected rights.
How do prosecutors build a § 25.031 case?
Because the crime is an agreement, prosecutors look first for the words of the deal — recorded communications, an informant or cooperating witness, an undercover operation, and financial records. Each source has a corresponding line of defense, and the intent element is where these cases are won and lost.
Because the crime is an agreement, prosecutors look first for the words of the deal. In practice, the evidence in these cases usually comes from one or more of the following sources, and each one has a corresponding line of defense.
- Recorded communications. Text messages, direct messages, emails, and recorded phone calls are the most common proof. The defense scrutinizes whether the messages actually show an agreement and a payment term, or merely venting, hypotheticals, or one person’s unaccepted proposal.
- An informant or cooperating witness. Many of these cases start when the person who was approached — an investigator, an acquaintance, a relative — goes to police. That witness’s credibility, motive, and any deal with the State are fair game on cross-examination.
- An undercover operation. When law enforcement learns of an alleged plan in advance, an officer may pose as the person willing to do the taking. That raises the possibility of an entrapment defense under Penal Code § 8.06 if officers induced conduct the accused was not otherwise predisposed to commit.
- Financial records. Because remuneration is an element, the State may point to a payment, a transfer, or a documented promise of money. The defense examines whether the money was actually tied to an abduction plan or had an innocent explanation.
The intent element is where these cases are won and lost. The State must show not only that words were exchanged but that the accused actually meant to enter a paid agreement to take a child by unlawful means. Statements taken out of context, machine-translated messages, and conversations that were really about lawful options — filing in family court, asking for a visitation exchange — frequently look more incriminating in a police summary than they do when the full thread is read in order.
§ 25.031 vs. interference, enticing, and kidnapping
Agreement to abduct (§ 25.031), interference with child custody (§ 25.03), enticing a child (§ 25.04), and kidnapping (§ 20.03/§ 20.04) are easy to confuse and often charged together, but they are legally distinct. Getting the distinction right can be the difference between a custody fight and serious felony exposure.
These offenses are easy to confuse and are frequently charged together, but they are legally distinct. Getting the distinction right is often the difference between a custody fight and a serious felony exposure.
- Agreement to abduct from custody — § 25.031
- Punishes the paid agreement to abduct a child by force, threat, misrepresentation, stealth, or unlawful entry. The focus is the for-hire bargain and the unlawful method. No actual taking is required. State jail felony.
- Interference with child custody — § 25.03
- Punishes actually taking or retaining a child in violation of a custody order, or a noncustodial parent enticing a child to leave lawful custody. Texas courts confirm it is a state jail felony. See Rue v. State, 288 S.W.3d 107, 117–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (“section 25.03 of the Penal Code . . . makes interference with child custody a state jail felony”). The difference from § 25.031 is completed conduct versus a paid agreement.
- Enticing a child — § 25.04
- Punishes knowingly enticing, persuading, or taking a child from a parent or guardian with intent to interfere with lawful custody. It is generally a misdemeanor unless the actor intended to commit a felony against the child, in which case it becomes a felony. Friedsam v. State, 373 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012). Notably, that a child left voluntarily is no defense to enticing.
- Kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping — § 20.03 / § 20.04
- Kidnapping requires an actual abduction — restraint with intent to prevent liberation. Unlike the custody offenses, kidnapping does not turn on a custody order; it turns on unlawful restraint. The Houston court in Rue contrasted the two, noting the aggravated-kidnapping statute “does not contain any comparable restriction” to the custody-order requirement of § 25.03. These carry the steepest ranges of the group.
What happens after an arrest, step by step?
A § 25.031 case generally moves through arrest and booking, magistration, bond and conditions, grand-jury presentation of the felony charge, pretrial litigation, and resolution. Because the offense is a felony involving a child, courts often impose no-contact conditions and the case usually runs alongside a parallel family-court matter.
If you or a family member has been arrested or learns that a warrant exists, the case will generally move through these stages. Knowing the sequence helps you understand where defense work happens and why early decisions matter.
- Arrest and booking. The accused is taken into custody and booked. This is the moment when the right to remain silent matters most — in an agreement case, recorded jail calls and any statements can become central evidence.
- Magistration. Within roughly 48 hours, a magistrate informs the accused of the charge and the rights that attach, and sets initial bond.
- Bond and conditions. In a case involving a child, the court frequently imposes conditions such as no contact with the child or the custodian, and may coordinate with any existing family-court orders. A defense lawyer can ask for a bond reduction or modification of conditions.
- Filing of the charge. Because § 25.031 is a felony, the case is presented to a grand jury for possible indictment. This stage is an opportunity: a defense lawyer can present mitigating information and, in some cases, advocate against indictment.
- Pretrial litigation. The defense reviews discovery, files motions to suppress unlawfully obtained statements or evidence, challenges the sufficiency of the alleged agreement, and tests the State’s proof on each element.
- Resolution. Cases end in dismissal, a negotiated outcome, deferred adjudication, or trial. The earlier sound defense work begins, the more options usually remain on the table.
One offense-specific wrinkle: § 25.031 cases almost always run alongside a parallel family-court proceeding — a divorce, a protective order, or a custody modification. What is said and filed in the civil case can affect the criminal case and vice versa. Coordinating the two tracks is part of defending the whole situation rather than just the charge. L and L Law Group defends these cases across North Texas — Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties — from our Frisco office, where felony charges are heard in the district courts of the county where the offense is alleged to have occurred.
Collateral consequences of a conviction
A state jail felony conviction reaches well beyond the courtroom — family-court fallout in custody disputes, loss of firearm rights, immigration exposure for non-citizens, employment and licensing barriers, and housing-application problems. These consequences are why keeping a case from ending in a conviction is so often the central goal.
A state jail felony conviction reaches well beyond the courtroom. Anyone weighing how hard to fight a § 25.031 charge should understand the full picture.
- Family court fallout. A conviction — or even the underlying conduct — can be used against a parent in a custody or possession dispute and may support a modification limiting that parent’s access to the child.
- Firearms. A felony conviction triggers loss of firearm rights under Texas Penal Code § 46.04 and federal law at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- Immigration. For a non-citizen, any felony involving a child can carry serious immigration consequences. Immigration questions should be evaluated by counsel before any plea.
- Employment and licensing. A felony record can affect professional licenses, jobs that involve children, and background checks generally.
- Housing. Felony convictions routinely surface on rental and housing applications.
These consequences are exactly why keeping a case from ending in a conviction — through dismissal, acquittal, or a disposition that preserves eligibility for record relief — is so often the central goal.
Can an agreement-to-abduct charge be dismissed or expunged?
Whether a charge can be dismissed depends on the evidence applied to your facts — gaps in the agreement, the payment term, the unlawful means, or knowledge of the custody order are grounds to push for dismissal or acquittal. A case that ends without a conviction may qualify for expunction; a deferred-adjudication outcome may later support an order of nondisclosure.
Whether a charge can be dismissed depends on the evidence and the law applied to your facts. When the State cannot prove a real agreement, a payment term, an unlawful means, or knowledge of the custody order, those gaps are grounds to push for dismissal or acquittal. Where the proof is electronic, a successful motion to suppress can take the heart out of the State’s case.
If a case is dismissed, ends in acquittal, or otherwise never results in a conviction, an expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 55A may be available to clear the record. If the case is resolved with deferred adjudication, a later petition for an order of nondisclosure may be possible to seal it from public view, subject to the statutory waiting periods and eligibility rules. Because the relief available depends on the precise outcome and the client’s broader record, eligibility should be evaluated case by case.
Two illustrative scenarios (hypothetical)
The following are hypothetical examples used to illustrate how the statute applies. They are not descriptions of real clients or actual results.
Scenario one. A noncustodial parent, frustrated after losing a custody hearing, contacts an acquaintance and offers to pay him to grab the child from the other parent’s home at night. The acquaintance, alarmed, records the conversation and goes to police. Here the State would point to a recorded agreement, a payment offer (remuneration), a plan involving stealth and unlawful entry, and the parent’s knowledge of the custody order. The defense would test whether the recording shows a genuine accepted bargain or angry talk, and whether the parent truly committed to the unlawful means or was venting.
Scenario two. A relative agrees, with no money discussed, to drive a child to a parent during a confused, informal custody handoff, believing everyone had consented. If there is no payment or promise of payment and no force or deception, § 25.031 does not fit, whatever else the situation may be. The analysis would shift to whether any other statute even applies. The difference between the two scenarios — payment plus unlawful means versus neither — is the entire case.
