Split NY appeals court affirms conviction in kidnapping of daughter

In a split decision, a New York state appeals court has upheld the kidnapping conviction of a now-disbarred lawyer who left the state with her daughter to keep the child away from the father.

Chelsea Four-Rosenbaum, and her mother, were convicted in September 2022 before Sullivan County Court Judge James Farrell of second-degree kidnapping and endangering the welfare of a child.

Four-Rosenbaum was sentenced to seven years in prison, followed by five years of post-release supervision, on the kidnapping conviction, and to a lesser concurrent jail term on the endangering the welfare of a child conviction.

In a 3-2 vote, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Third Department, affirmed the convictions.

Four-Rosenbaum’s appellate attorney argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to support her convictions, and that the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence.

Four-Rosenbaum claimed the father was having an affair with the child’s babysitter, who she alleged was a witch. At the trial, both the father and the babysitter denied they were romantically involved.

The father claimed Four-Rosenbaum had “extreme religious beliefs,” including the notion that the child was “under a spell of witchcraft.”

She also believed that the child was having nightmares because there were demons in her, and the child’s grandmother told her that “food drives demons from you.”

Also, Four-Rosenbaum’s brother testified that she claimed the father was sexually abusing the child.

In July 2021, Four-Rosenbaum resigned from her position as an attorney at an Orange County law firm and disappeared with her mother and the child.

The father contacted law enforcement agencies and filed a petition in Family Court seeking temporary physical custody of the child and ordering that the child remain in New York.

On Aug. 26, 2021, Four-Rosenbaum, her mother, and the child were located in a hotel in Bellevue, Washington, with $27,000 in cash, debit cards and receipts documenting extensive travel across the country.

“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find defendant’s conviction of kidnapping in the second degree to be supported by legally sufficient evidence,” Andrew G. Ceresia wrote for the Third Department panel.

“The proof at trial demonstrated that the child was of such an age that she could not control her own movements and that defendant, aside from other sojourns, intentionally moved the child to Washington, without the knowledge or consent of the father, establishing that defendant had hindered the child’s movements and held her in a place where she was not likely to be found,” the court wrote.

Four-Rosenbaum declared an affirmative defense, and was required to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she took the child for the sole purpose of assuming control over her, Ceresia wrote.

“Considering this evidence in a neutral light and deferring to the jury’s factual findings and credibility determinations, the jury’s rejection of defendant’s affirmative defense was not against the weight of the evidence,” Ceresia wrote.

“Accordingly, this conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and, although a contrary result may not have been unreasonable … the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence,” the majority ruled.

Justices Mark L. Powers and L. Michael Mackey dissented.

Powers wrote that Four-Rosenbaum and her mother “have both established the affirmative defense to kidnapping in the second degree by a preponderance of the evidence.”

“Our divergence stems from the issue of whether the jury’s rejection of the affirmative defense … was against the weight of the evidence,” he wrote.

“Contrary to the determination made by the majority, we would find that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that defendant, together with the codefendant, took the child and secreted her away from the father — ultimately to another state — for the manifest purpose of getting the child away from the father,” Powers wrote.

“Stated another way, defendant was acting with the purpose of assuming control over the child. The evidence at trial demonstrates that this purpose was driven by a litany of supposed facts that defendant and the codefendant believed to be true and considered to be negatively influencing the child,” he wrote.

“Nevertheless, the proof does not reveal that defendant took the child as retribution against the father or as a mechanism to terrorize him … Instead, the evidence establishes that defendant took the child for the sole purpose of protecting the child from the father, who defendant believed to be causing the child harm,” Powers wrote.

“Regardless of whether these motives were in fact grounded in reality, the proof presented at trial … established that defendant took the child for the purpose of assuming control of her, thereby meeting the requirements of the affirmative defense,” he wrote.

“All told, because we would find that the jury’s rejection of the affirmative defense was against the weight of the evidence and, as a result, defendant’s conviction of kidnapping in the second degree should be reversed, we respectfully dissent,” he wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035