Chapter 10 - The Old Permission Did Not Mean What Marjorie Said
Marjorie’s attorney made the strongest possible argument.
She had:
A valid passport.
A still-unexpired notarized travel authorization.
A booked return ticket ten days later.
Family hosts in Canada.
No evidence she intended permanent removal.
All true.
Therefore, she argued:
This was a family travel dispute, not attempted kidnapping.
Our side responded:
The letter required advance itinerary.
No itinerary was provided.
I had not agreed.
Host relatives had not approved the actual plan.
Marjorie had intentionally concealed departure.
She had told Ione not to tell me.
And private messages suggested she hoped to extend the stay beyond the booked return date after departure.
The legal result was nuanced.
Prosecutors did not charge kidnapping.
Good.
No melodrama.
They investigated attempted custodial interference.
The exact fit under state law was debatable because of the old authorization.
Ultimately Marjorie resolved a reduced misdemeanor attempt/interference-related charge in combination with a child-endangerment/harassment-related count arising from discipline.
The message was not:
Grandparents can never travel under broad consent.
It was:
An old authorization is not permission to secretly reinterpret the parent’s decision.
May you like
Consent has scope.
────────────────────
