WA WA - Seraya Aung Harmon, 2, Pullman, 29 May 2024 *father and daughter went on a fishing trip in Montana but did not return*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
kae27 said:
People can be arrested when these matters become criminal.
Click to expand...
Well, thank for clarifying. So, the interfering with a custodial agreement is a criminal charge, you're saying. I won't pretend to know what I don't know.
 
Artis said:
So, not kidnapping. Is it civil or criminal?
Click to expand...
Criminal. Custodial Interference: Section 18-4506 – Idaho State Legislature

Interesting to note that a valid defense could be:
"It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of the provisions of subsection 1. of this section that:
(a) The action is taken to protect the child from imminent physical harm;"

Which I am presuming is why the Aungs used that language, and bolded it, in their statement:
"they acted on Seraya because they felt she was in imminent danger"

ETA: Sorry I cited Idaho law. Should be Washington:

RCW 9A.40.060: Custodial interference in the first degree.

app.leg.wa.gov

Aung Family Statement

Site Released 6/12/24 | Site Updated 6/14/24 10:32 PM | **** NEW YOUTUBE VIDEOS ****
aungfamilystatement.com aungfamilystatement.com
 
Last edited:
Googlebutts said:
But they didn’t admit to helping or financing or anything else criminal. Everyone pretty much knows they’re all together. And LE has said they think they’re not in this country. Being ok with that is not criminal. I’m also not sure he will be charged with kidnapping, might only be custodial interference. It sounds like they have joint custody.
Click to expand...
Exactly! They didn’t admit to anything criminal or even to helping them financially or otherwise, though it’s obviously likely that they did. I’m sure LE has interviewed and investigated them thoroughly and have been keeping a very close eye on them.
 
CrimeDawg123 said:
Criminal. Custodial Interference: Section 18-4506 – Idaho State Legislature

Interesting to note that a valid defense could be:
"It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of the provisions of subsection 1. of this section that:
(a) The action is taken to protect the child from imminent physical harm;"

Which I am presuming is why the Aungs used that language, and bolded it, in their statement:
"they acted on Seraya because they felt she was in imminent danger"

Aung Family Statement

Site Released 6/12/24 | Site Updated 6/14/24 10:32 PM | **** NEW YOUTUBE VIDEOS ****
aungfamilystatement.com aungfamilystatement.com
Click to expand...
Seraya is missing from Pullman, WA, not Idaho.
 
Artis said:
I'm not inclined to take sides. I don't know any of these people and custody situations are the worst. I'd say they need to produce evidence that that child is fine, at the very least.

So far, I'm not sure that a crime has been alleged. Wasn't it something about violating a custody arrangement (vs kidnapping)? Is that civil or criminal? It's been obvious, from the very beginning, that the Aungs knew exactly what was going on and I would imagine that means the cops have had interviews with them. Remember they came to the police station and gave the mother the note about going to Montana to fish (a BS story if there ever was one). So, his parents know what's up and the cops and FBI know his parents know. For them to be guilty of a crime (accessory) Aaron would first have to be charged with a criminal offence, I would think.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Click to expand...
He was charged with a felony.
 
kae27 said:
Yes, it's a criminal charge; hence the ability to issue an arrest warrant.
Click to expand...

Here is info about the crime of custodial interference in Idaho, bolded by me:
  • the violation "shall be a felony, unless the defendant did not take the child outside the state, and the child was voluntarily returned unharmed prior to the defendant’s arrest in which case the violation shall be reduced to a misdemeanor."

I think the mom lives in Washington, though, so here is info about the crime in that state, bolded by me:
  • "Custodial interference in the first degree is a class C felony."

Just to make sure we all know, felonies are crimes and they are serious crimes. You can't take a child against the other parent's will.

Sources:

Section 18-4506 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov legislature.idaho.gov

 
CrimeDawg123 said:
Criminal. Custodial Interference: Section 18-4506 – Idaho State Legislature

Interesting to note that a valid defense could be:
"It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of the provisions of subsection 1. of this section that:
(a) The action is taken to protect the child from imminent physical harm;"

Which I am presuming is why the Aungs used that language, and bolded it, in their statement:
"they acted on Seraya because they felt she was in imminent danger"

ETA: Sorry I cited Idaho law. Should be Washington:

RCW 9A.40.060: Custodial interference in the first degree.

app.leg.wa.gov

Aung Family Statement

Site Released 6/12/24 | Site Updated 6/14/24 10:32 PM | **** NEW YOUTUBE VIDEOS ****
aungfamilystatement.com aungfamilystatement.com
Click to expand...
Hope one of the attorneys might also help with this - and if the ‘couple’ also takes the child out of one state and into or through another might that constitute additional charges?

And if the ‘couple’ also takes the child out of the country and into another, then other country or international laws might also be broken and invoked? And that could constitute additional charges? If so hopefully the most severe laws applicable are also utilized. Not to mention the cost of any investigation and efforts to thwart justice and locate the suspect(s). Maybe additional charges there as well? And getting harder to believe that NC won’t also incur charges? IANAL. MOO
 
CrimeDawg123 said:
Criminal. Custodial Interference: Section 18-4506 – Idaho State Legislature

Interesting to note that a valid defense could be:
"It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of the provisions of subsection 1. of this section that:
(a) The action is taken to protect the child from imminent physical harm;"

Which I am presuming is why the Aungs used that language, and bolded it, in their statement:
"they acted on Seraya because they felt she was in imminent danger"

ETA: Sorry I cited Idaho law. Should be Washington:

RCW 9A.40.060: Custodial interference in the first degree.

app.leg.wa.gov

Aung Family Statement

Site Released 6/12/24 | Site Updated 6/14/24 10:32 PM | **** NEW YOUTUBE VIDEOS ****
aungfamilystatement.com aungfamilystatement.com
Click to expand...
Interesting and I'll bet you're correct about the choice of language.
 
I’m completely befuddled as to how these kids haven’t been found yet. I’m conflicted because especially after reading the Aung family statement, I would think if they were involved and helping them hide, they would want to keep the three very close by where they could continue to have some measure of influence and control. It makes the most sense that they are likely hiding out somewhere very close to home, and that it was all planned out with supplies and food etc all in place well before they went missing.

BUT… then there’s the Caddy crossing the border into Mexico and LE stating they believe all 3 were in that vehicle. Would Aaron’s family really help send them over the border in a Cadillac where they would stick out like sore thumbs and possibly be in terrible danger and where they (the parents) have no influence or control?

But also…their statement comes across as very confident that all 3 are perfectly ok and they don’t seem worried about their safety at all.

I don’t know what to make of it all!
 
CrimeDawg123 said:
Criminal. Custodial Interference: Section 18-4506 – Idaho State Legislature

Interesting to note that a valid defense could be:
"It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of the provisions of subsection 1. of this section that:
(a) The action is taken to protect the child from imminent physical harm;"

Which I am presuming is why the Aungs used that language, and bolded it, in their statement:
"they acted on Seraya because they felt she was in imminent danger"

ETA: Sorry I cited Idaho law. Should be Washington:

RCW 9A.40.060: Custodial interference in the first degree.

app.leg.wa.gov

Aung Family Statement

Site Released 6/12/24 | Site Updated 6/14/24 10:32 PM | **** NEW YOUTUBE VIDEOS ****
aungfamilystatement.com aungfamilystatement.com
Click to expand...
Wait... I thought the child and her mother resided in Idaho. Not sure about that now.

Edit: I see it is Pullman WA.
 
Last edited:
Artis said:
Did I say that? No, don't think I did. I said I was not inclined to take sides and wondered if he, Aaron, is wanted for a civil or criminal offense. How does that add up to my approving of this couple taking off with the child? It doesn't and I don't approve. Of course, I followed the Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell case and this is not even remotely like it. Until this little girl is produced to her mother, proof of her well being, AT THE VERY LEAST (as I said), seems pretty damn critical. That would mean immediately, even if they don't surface or aren't caught. Were that my child, I would welcome any information I could get until she's returned. Make of that what you choose.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying. It came across to me that you were perfectly fine with the Aung Family statement, which seemed to support Aaron taking off with the child. I couldn't imagine under what circumstances it was fine to take off with Seraya and continue to ignore the law.
Sorry if I misunderstood.
 
I think it's unconscionable that the Aungs made this statement, in PUBLIC, to the PRESS. This all should have been kept private and spoken about with LE. It's up to LE and CPS to investigate this.
Whether parts are true or not, it amounts to outright slander. Samara could sue them, rightfully.
These people think they are above everyone else, they even slandered the court system.
This is not going to do them well...one bit.

I suspected, even knew, the parents were involved, even having orchestrated this....in advance, premeditated, on the sly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 102 more.
Total: 1,754 (members: 103, guests: 1,651)

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
1,651
Total visitors
1,754
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,471
Messages
18,095,755
Members
230,862
Latest member
jusslikeme
Back
Top