New York Family Law Blog
Child custody cases often present the court with difficult decisions that impact the well-being of a child. In the matter of B.N. v. J.N., the New York Family Court was asked to decide whether temporary changes to a custody agreement were needed after serious allegations were raised and the parenting relationship broke down. The court reviewed claims of interference, abuse, and threats, and issued several interim orders while the case moved toward a full hearing.
In custody matters, courts are guided by the best interests of the child. Judges consider several factors, including the stability of each parent’s home, the history of caregiving, the ability of each parent to support the child’s emotional and developmental needs, and the willingness of each parent to encourage a relationship with the other parent.
Background Facts
The parents were married and shared one child. In December 2023, they signed a written custody agreement as part of their divorce. Under the agreement, both parents shared joint legal custody, but the Father was named the residential custodial parent. The child lived with him in New York. The Mother, who resided in France, was allowed up to two weeks of parenting time per month when visiting the United States. She was responsible for arranging and paying for accommodations during her visits.
The agreement also stated that the Father would hold the child’s passport while the child was in the United States. This arrangement made it clear that the child’s primary residence would be with the Father in New York.
Shortly after the agreement was finalized, the parents began to argue about custody and money. The Mother began to involve the child in these conflicts. At one point, she accused the Father of sexual abuse, and filed a family offense petition in Family Court. She also made criminal complaints. The police and child protective services investigated these claims.
Question Before the Court
Whether the existing custody agreement should be modified while the case proceeded to trial. The Father asked the court to give him sole custody, restrict the Mother’s parenting time, and order therapy and alcohol testing. He also asked the court to enforce the existing agreement. The Mother asked the court to give her sole custody, suspend the Father’s parenting time, and allow her to hold the child’s passport.
Court’s Decision
The court made several temporary decisions. It consolidated the family offense proceeding into the custody case. It found that the sex abuse allegations lacked support. Investigators from ACS and the District Attorney’s Office found the claims to be unsubstantiated. ACS also found the Mother had coached the child and abused alcohol in her presence.
The court modified the temporary order of protection to remove restrictions that prevented the Father from seeing the child. It restored the Father’s parenting time, ordered the Mother’s visits to be supervised, and directed individual therapy for the child with a new therapist. Reunification therapy between the Father and child was also ordered to continue.
The court prohibited out-of-state travel with the child (except to New Jersey and Connecticut) during therapy. The parents were ordered to use a co-parenting communication app. The Mother was directed to undergo random alcohol testing. The child’s passport was to be held by the child’s attorney.
The court also appointed a new parenting coordinator and forensic evaluator. It scheduled a future hearing on custody.
Discussion
The court found that several events showed a change in circumstances since the original custody agreement. These included the Mother’s interference with the child’s relationship with the Father, the coaching of the child to make false claims, and the results of investigations by ACS and others. The court also found the Mother had failed to support the reunification process.
Although the child expressed a desire not to see the Father, the court found that this could not be the only factor in deciding custody. The court noted that the child may have been influenced by the Mother, and the child’s preference had to be weighed carefully in light of that possibility.
The court rejected the Mother’s argument that the current situation had become the new “status quo.” It explained that the proper legal status was still the one set forth in the written agreement. The Mother’s unilateral decision to withhold the child did not change that.
The court made clear that it was not changing permanent custody at this stage. Instead, it issued temporary orders meant to protect the child while the court gathered more information. These included supervised parenting time, therapy orders, and restrictions on travel. The court found these steps were needed to prevent further psychological harm to the child and to support a possible repair of the parent-child relationship.
The court also found that the Father should not bear all the costs of the forensic evaluator, since the parties had recently agreed that he was fit to have residential custody. The Mother was ordered to pay half of those costs.
Conclusion
The court in B.N. v. J.N. was presented with serious allegations and troubling facts. While not reaching a final decision on custody, the court took several steps to stabilize the situation and protect the child. These interim orders restored the Father’s access, restricted the Mother’s visits, and set up a plan for therapy and evaluation.
A full hearing will be held to determine whether permanent changes to custody should be made. Until then, the temporary orders will remain in effect.
If you are involved in a child custody dispute, it is important to understand your rights and responsibilities. Contact an experienced New York child custody lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates to learn how we can assist you.