Some more thoughts that may be helpful, and a couple links.
Regarding extradition:
There seems to be some confusion about how extradition works. A state that "does not extradite" from a certain region means that the state in question will not retrieve someone from another state. (Often because the expenses would need to be paid by the extraditing state. The extraditing state is the state that WANTS the person, and is responsible for the costs of retrieving them.
For example: Picture three states. State A is the state the crime was committed in. State B is a state that shares a border with it. State C is on the literal opposite side of the US. When State A puts out a warrant, it may decide, depending on the severity of the crime, that it will only extradite (pay for housing and transportation, to simplify) from certain near states. Therefore, if Person hides in state B, they would be extradited, while if they go to state C, they might not. State A, the extraditing state, always has the option to decide that yes, they DO in fact want to extend that range to retrieve this particular accused, even if they're clear over in state C, where they wouldn't normally retrieve from.
State A, the extraditing state, decides this, and sends a special kind of warrant (an extradition warrant, aka a governer's warrant) to the other state. (This can happen before an arrest, or after Person has already been picked up. Often, State A has a particular amount of time, often 30 days, to retrieve the Person.)
In this particular case, state A would be Idaho, while state C would be Hawaii. Hawaii's responsibility is just to provide the forum for the Person to potentially fight extradition, but that's generally just a delaying tactic, unless Person happens to be Wrong Person.
Regarding charges:
Sure, Idaho might not extradite for misdemeanors. But I don't think anyone really expects there to just be misdemeanor charges. It appears that Idaho, just by itself, likely has sufficient ability to prepare multiple felony charges against at least Lori. All it will take is custody being handed over to CPS. (More on that in a minute.) This would lead to at least two child custody interference felonies, one for Tylee, one for JJ. (Unless Tylee really is emancipated... then CPS couldn't take custody of her.) In doing some research of somewhat similar cases here in the NW, there's often other felony charges that get added to it
Regarding CPS & Custody & Jurisdiction:
Kay and Larry may or may not have the ability to file for emergency custody, since they’re from out of state. That’s actually probably irrelevant, because that’s unlikely to be the fastest nor the most effective way to do it. They’d have a higher bar to meet, and probably not have access to all the relevant facts, unless law enforcement shares it with them.
According to the
Idaho Child Protection Manual (check out chapter 3), CPS jurisdiction does not require the child to be in the state for a specific length of time. In fact, it appears to show they can just be visiting, even, so long as they are present in the state. (I suspect, but don’t know, this may be fairly uniform across the US.) As the last place the kids are KNOWN to be, Idaho would be the only state to reasonably have jurisdiction.
So regardless of which of the ways they choose to use to obtain custody, CPS will almost certainly have custody of those kids very shortly. Tomorrow, if not tonight. I’m doubtful law enforcement’s already public declaration that the children are in danger is sufficient, because the children aren’t present, for the first option listed, so expect them to need an order from a judge, requested by the prosecutor, under the second option listed.
A judge is unlikely to deny it, with everything that’s already public, IMO, and it’s reasonable to think they may have even more info for court.
At some point after that, possibly as soon as tomorrow, I expect arrests, provided that they don’t misplace Chad and Lori. In the
Logan Barkes case, Idaho extradited from Florida on felony custodial interference... and that was a much, much more straightforward case.
There are numerous cases, often for medical neglect, in which a state obtains custody after the parent has already taken off with the child. Sometimes, the parent is even arrested when the children haven’t yet been located.
Regarding their lawyer:
Gotta admit, I’m curious what he’s up to today. Not headed to Hawaii, though, he could do them no good there. They’d need a local attorney.