Note: below is a mashup of some of the most important moments from the March 18, 2026, hearing in which the committee killed HB 668.
The Idaho legislature made it clear that custodial interference is a criminal statute it has no plans to enforce.
The Idaho Child Custody and Domestic Relations Task Force met numerous times in 2025, and according to co-chair Republican State Representative Heather Scott one recurring problem was the lack of enforcement of custodial interference. Below is part of her testimony from March 18, 2026.
“We heard multiple times from law enforcement and public servants and others that the system had failed them- that the legislators had failed them- to give them guidance into a process.” Representative Scott stated in her testimony.
The current custodial interference law in Idaho defines what custodial interference is and the penalties.
The statute does not provide any guidance to law enforcement as to what to do when a custodial interference complaint comes in. Custodial interference is when one parent deliberately withholds a child from the other parent in violation of a court order.
HB 668 was designed to provide this guidance, and the key portion is below.
With HB 668, police would be required- with the word SHALL in the law- to do a welfare check, an investigation, and write a report.
The bill sailed through the Idaho House, passing 68-1.
This committee hearing and vote along with the vote in the full Idaho Senate looked to be a formality.
Instead, members of the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee peppered Representative Scott with skeptical questions, like the ones below from Republican State Senator Dan Foreman.
Senator Foreman stated, “I think as written, we may be putting too much burden on law enforcement in the field. Law enforcement rarely has the paperwork or the insight as to who is telling the truth.”
He later said that cops were not supposed to be, “truth detectors.”
I reached out to State Senator Foreman, a former police officer, by email, but he didn’t respond.
His assertion that police were ill equipped to investigate custodial interference was stated by numerous state senators and witnesses; this argument was the main reason why the bill was killed.
It’s the wrong assertion and it is disingenuous in my opinion.
Custodial interference is a crime by current Idaho statute- as well as the statute of every state I have checked- and police investigate all other crimes.
Foreman and others called this a “civil matter;” it’s not. It’s a crime.
Furthermore, while a protective order is a civil matter, a violation in Idaho is a crime, and one that statute empowers police to investigate and arrest.
Of course, police are at time required to be “truth detectors.” How else can alleged crimes be investigated without determining who is telling the truth?
State Senator Lakey echoed State Senator Foreman’s skepticism when it was his turn.
State Senator Lakey, who did not respond to an email for comment, also didn’t think that police were best equipped to investigate custodial interference.
A former prosecutor, he noted that there was a “traffic court day” when he was a prosecutor, and this bill “would create a family law day.”
Presumably, he meant that forcing police to investigate each allegation of custodial interference would create so many citations that a day would need to be carved out to deal with all the citations.
He claimed that the current law, “was for the serious cases.”
That’s not correct. The current law gives parents a twenty-four-hour window but after those twenty-four hours expires a parent is guilty of a misdemeanor and if the child is taken out of state a felony.
This law merely forces police to investigate the crime.
Another person testifying was Meridian Idaho Police Chief Tracy Basterrechea.
Chief Basterrechea testified at the first Task Force hearing, when he claimed that current law tied his hands.
At this hearing, Chief Basterrechea, representing Police Chiefs, testified against HB 668, arguing that police were not equipped to investigate this crime.
Chief Basterrechea also argued that police were ill-equipped to investigate custodial interference.
In his comments to the Task Force, he said that current law tied his hands, and now he argued that a bill untying his hands was a bad idea.
Those dual statements made me wonder and I asked his office for comment. Their statement is below.
Chief Basterrechea was testifying on behalf of the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association. Chief Basterrechea is firmly in support of enforcing child custody interference laws; however, the law presented was done without input from prosecutors and or law enforcement. When asked for help on the bill, so that it would be workable, law enforcement organizations were ignored.
Passing bad or unusable laws just to make ourselves feel good is not good policy. If we are going to strengthen the Child Custody Interference laws, they need to be sound policy and enforceable. Not a law that is easily manipulated or skirted by either parent.
In a follow up email, I asked what his solution would be. That was not returned. Five of the eight members of the State Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee voted against this bill. The other three members are below.
I reached out to all five members who voted against HB 668, and none responded. Among the questions I asked was for an alternate solution.
No one has provided one. Among those testifying was Andrew Gilgore. He told a heartbreaking story of not seeing two of his children for months, one longer than a year, because their mother has willfully defied court orders, and the court system can’t help.
The system will continue to fail Andrew because the Idaho legislature thinks custodial interference is special, a crime which police shouldn’t investigate- and they have no alternative to fix this broken system.
