The case in Idaho that generated the order to produce the children came from a case where the State of Idaho is the adversarial party to Lori. It is not a case for or by the Grandparents. We have not seen the docket of that case by the State because such proceedings are non-public. It is separate and distinct from the Guardianship case that was filed by the Woodcock's several days after Lori was served. Under Idaho Statutes only State Attorney's (elected in each county) have standing to initiate a Child Welfare case. The Department of Health and Welfare which has the CPS function in Idaho does not have standing to do so. So, this is an action by the State and has nothing to do with Grandparents' rights which is an entirely different matter.
Re: possible scenarios and charges, I'm no attorney, but I wonder if there might not be a different statute under which maybe at least Lori could be charged (kind of like going after Al Capone for tax evasion..)
I think in most states when it comes to child custody there is a legal difference between "legal custody" and "physical custody".
I also think that under certain circumstances (such as the death of both parents at the same time) some states have laws allowing the state to assert a claim of "emergency temporary legal custody" to protect a child from imminent harm.
IF Idaho had such a law and it was applicable, the state may already have "emergency temporary legal custody" of the children - even if they don't have physical custody in the legal or conventional sense. We wouldn't know, as the documents are sealed.
The court's "order to produce" also included an order that the State's Dept. of Health and Welfare produce a report by 2/10.
Lori violated the court order by failing to produce the children on 1/30, which probably only resulted in a contempt of court charge.
But once the Health and Welfare report was received on 2/10, I'm sure the State's Atty considered it (along with other evidence) to determine whether additional charges should be filed against Lori.
IF additional charges were (or are to be) filed, I think it's possible they could be based on Idaho's statute pertaining to "interference with custody" (18-4502).
IF the state had "emergency temporary legal custody" of the children beginning sometime around 2/10, then every day after that which Lori failed to produce the children, she may have been "interfering with custody" - a crime which according to the code is a felony.
In reading the statute, it wasn't clear to me what the specific penalty was for interference with custody, but it's worth noting that the larger section of code under which the interference statute falls pertains to kidnapping. Penalties listed for kidnapping include from 1 to 25 years, life in prison, and even the death penalty, depending on the circumstances. I wonder if a continuing "interference with custody" could be considered kidnapping?
JMO
