Which of the following is an acceptable defense against a charge of interference with custody?

Assuming lawful control of a relative’s child is a recognized defense against a charge of interference with custody because it aligns with the principle that family members often have legal standing to care for one another, especially in situations where it is in the best interest of the child. This can include scenarios where a relative takes action to protect a child from harm, provide necessary support, or fulfill obligations when the legal custodian is unable to do so.

This defense emphasizes the importance of context and the familial relationship when evaluating custody matters. When assessing cases of interference with custody, courts often examine the intentions behind actions taken and the nature of the relationship to the child involved. If the relative acts with genuine care and concern for the child's welfare, this can justify their actions in the eyes of the law.

The other options do not sufficiently establish a lawful defense. For instance, taking a child from an unsupervised park may be seen as a questionable act without legal grounds for intervention. Refusing to return a child to the custodial parent undermines the legal custody arrangement, and keeping a child away from a troubled home may lack legal justification if the home environment does not present an immediate danger that surpasses custodial rights. Thus, option B stands out as the only choice