ROUND ROCK — A Round Rock mother and an associate were arrested after authorities said they orchestrated the disappearance of an 8-year-old girl to sidestep a court-ordered custody arrangement, and a two-day search ended with the child found safe, according to Austin American-Statesman.
The search and the arrests
Authorities said the child, identified as Cadence Doyle, was reported as a runaway on Dec. 5 and located safely on Dec. 6. Investigators determined the report was suspicious and mobilized a large-scale search before concluding the child had been hidden to avoid custody orders, according to Austin American-Statesman.
Sheriff Matt Lindemann said, "When someone intentionally misleads law enforcement to conceal their child, triggering a response involving helicopters, drones, ATVs, K9s, and dozens of emergency personnel, only for it to be revealed as an attempt to avoid complying with court orders, appropriate criminal charges are both warranted and necessary," according to Austin American-Statesman.
Commander John Foster, Commander, Criminal Investigations Division, said, "Based on the information gathered, detectives determined that Doyle and her associate conspired to hide the child in an effort to circumvent an existing shared custody agreement," according to Austin American-Statesman.
The mother, 43-year-old Cailin Larissa Doyle, faces two felonies and a misdemeanor: felony unlawful restraint, felony interference with child custody and a misdemeanor false report regarding a missing child, according to Austin American-Statesman. A second woman, 36-year-old Karinna Ann Robertson, faces three felonies: interference with child custody, unlawful restraint and abandoning a child without intent to return. Investigators said Robertson ultimately left Cadence at a gas station near I-35 and Old Settlers Boulevard on Saturday afternoon before the girl was found safe, according to Austin American-Statesman. Both women were booked into the Williamson County Jail.
What the law says
The felony interference charge reflects a common path for custody-related disputes that escalate into criminal cases. Texas Penal Code § 25.03 makes it an offense to take, retain, or remove a child under 18 knowing the act violates a court’s custody order, or to remove a child from a designated geographic area without authorization; the offense is generally a state jail felony, according to Justia.
Authorities also listed abandoning a child without intent to return among the charges. While criminal charging decisions are made under the Penal Code, state law defines neglect broadly for protective investigations. The Texas Family Code’s abuse-and-neglect provisions describe neglect to include leaving a child in a situation that exposes them to immediate danger of physical or mental harm, and conduct that demonstrates an intent not to return, according to the Texas Legislature. Those definitions guide how child-welfare authorities evaluate risk when abandonment is alleged.
Shared custody under scrutiny
Detectives pointed to an alleged effort to circumvent a shared custody order as the motive. In Texas, custody frameworks include sole, joint and shared arrangements. Shared custody generally means both parents share decision-making and the child spends at least 35% of the year with each parent, according to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. Judges may also weigh a child’s preference once the child turns 12, part of the “best interest” analysis that shapes parenting plans.
Those structures rely on parental compliance. When one parent withholds or conceals a child to avoid a court order, it can shift a private dispute into a criminal investigation under § 25.03. And if a child is left in a situation that suggests no intent to return, the legal lens can widen from custody interference to questions of endangerment and neglect under state law, according to the Texas Legislature.
Community and legal implications
The Round Rock case underscores how quickly a report of a runaway can activate an all-hands response and how costly a false narrative can be for a community. The sheriff’s account highlights specialized assets—helicopters, drones, ATVs, K9 teams and dozens of personnel—that were diverted to search for a child later believed to have been intentionally hidden, as Sheriff Matt Lindemann said in the statement reported by Austin American-Statesman.
For families navigating custody plans, the episode is a stark reminder that the court’s orders are not suggestions; they are enforceable directives backed by criminal statutes such as Texas Penal Code § 25.03, as summarized by Justia. For local agencies, it is another test of coordinated response—moving swiftly to find a child while sifting truth from deception. The child at the center of this investigation was found safe. The legal process now shifts to courtrooms, where the allegations of interference, restraint and abandonment will be tested against the standards Texas law lays out and the day-to-day realities of shared parenting the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services describes. In the months ahead, the case will likely inform how local authorities message the consequences of misleading reports—and how families, lawyers and judges approach custody orders that need not only clear language, but consistent adherence.
This content has been submitted by authors outside of this publisher and is not its editorial product. It could contain opinions, facts, and points of view that have not been reviewed or accepted by the publisher. The content may have been created, in whole or in part, using artificial intelligence tools. Original Source →