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:
Aaron Aung, Nadia Cole and Seraya Aung
aungfamilystatement.com