What laws are broken if you help a perhaps-not-competent 18-year-old escape from his parents?

Question

There is an autistic boy aged 18. His parents have worked very hard to keep him mainstreamed his whole life. So he's been in private schools but had lots of tutoring and lots of sessions at clinics that help with life skills and such. I would say he was "functional." I do not know whether his parents have had him somehow classified as "not competent", but they might have.

The boy graduated high school and has an interest in art (probably because he plays online games constantly and wants to do graphic design.) His parents found an art school where he can pursue his interests. So this is his "college." I believe (but I'm not sure) that he still lives with his parents.

The parents are Christian. The boy has decided that he's not Christian and further, he's gender fluid. (I suspect his internet world was wider than his parents knew.) He decided he wanted to escape from his parents. It turns out that there is a group that "helps children escape religious parents." This group gave the boy money and cooked up an elaborate scheme to move the boy to another town. (The mom took the boy to a doctor's appointment but was waiting in the car because of Covid things. While in the clinic, an ambulance came for the boy and took him to another town. He was long gone before the mom knew anything was afoot. Bizarre?)

A "normal" 18-year-old can tell his parents to shove it and take off. If someone aids them, then that's probably not a crime. But in this case, the boy is functioning in society only at a low level and only because his parents support him.

The question(s):

1. If the boy is already legally declared not competent, then this organization has surely broken some laws. What would those be? It seems pretty close to kidnapping.

2. If he hasn't already been declared not competent, then have any laws been broken by this organization? Maybe not kidnapping, but preying upon the mentally disabled is surely something...?

The location is Texas.

Answer 1

There is an autistic boy aged 18.

So unless a court declares him incompetent, he is presumably competent and his parents have no legal power over him.

A "normal" 18-year-old can tell his parents to shove it and take off. If someone aids them, then that's probably not a crime. But in this case, the boy is functioning in society only at a low level and only because his parents support him.

This sounds like there could be a claim of his incompetence, but it might also just have a serious case of disability, which does not rise to incompetence. As a result, unless there is a court decision as to his incompetence, he is competent. Such judgments need to be reviewed in intervals.

In Texas' case, we are looking at Texas Estates Code, Title 3.

Assuming that the parents went to court on or after the 18th birthday and tried to declare their son incompetent, it'd usually take at least 3 months to receive a judgment on the matter. Prospect guardians and the person they seek guardianship of will have to appear in court numerous times - it's impossible to hide that proceeding from the possible ward. Since OP did not elaborate on anything like this, we can assume that there is no guardianship of this type.

If the parents sought guardianship before the 18th birthday, their application also would have needed to request adult guardianship at the same time to survive the 18th birthday - as that automatically cancels normal guardianship under 1202.001(b)(3). The inquiry is a little less invasive and somewhat faster, but still not able to be hidden from anyone older than about 15. Plus, there will be a yearly review of the situation under 1202.001(c). This means, that any Guardianship granted just before (as in, in the month before) the 18th birthday of the ward, at most lasts to about 11 months after the birthday, and the order needs to specifically point out that adult guardianship is granted.

Again, OP does not elaborate that this happened, and for a 15-year-old, it would be just as invasive and memorable as for an 18-year-old, so the non-mention of such proceedings means there likely is no guardianship.

No Guardianship, no Crime!

If there was no guardianship at the time, no crime exists.

But we can go a step further: Because the guy managed to arrange to get away, set up something somewhere without his guardians, and that included his own support and aid structure (aided by an organization), we should have a case that would satisfy 1202.001(b)(2). However, the judgment on that would need to happen first. Still, the situation could warrant an emergency hearing, which cancels the guardianship in a fashion that does not disturb the situation the ex-ward set up. This can include precluding any kidnapping charges for those who assisted in setting it up.