The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has upheld a ruling that grants sole legal and primary physical custody of a child to his mother in the case of Peru v. Peru. This decision, made on October 29, 2026, affects Frances Monique Peru and Craig Peru, who have been embroiled in a custody dispute concerning their child, who is on the autism spectrum. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of the child's best interests in custody arrangements.

The case began when Frances Monique Peru, the mother, sought legal and physical custody of their child, citing concerns about the father's ability to meet the child's needs. The initial ruling by the Supreme Court in New York County, made on March 3, 2025, granted her sole custody, a decision that Craig Peru appealed. The court's opinion noted that the father had not been as proactive in addressing the child's educational and medical needs, which are critical for a child on the autism spectrum.

Frances Monique Peru's legal representation included Maria Schwartz, PC, with Alexa R. Schwartz assisting. Craig Peru was represented by Daniel X. Robinson. The case reached the Appellate Division after Craig Peru contested the initial ruling, arguing for joint custody instead.

The Appellate Division found that there was a sound and substantial basis for the lower court's decision. The judges noted that the mother had consistently demonstrated a commitment to her child's educational and medical requirements. In their opinion, the court stated, "There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that the child's best interests are served by awarding sole legal and physical custody to the mother." This reflects a clear focus on the child's needs, particularly as he navigates challenges related to autism.

The court highlighted several factors that influenced their decision. The mother had provided a stable home environment and maintained employment, which contributed to her ability to care for the child. In contrast, the father had initially refused to accept the child's autism diagnosis and had undermined the mother's efforts to secure educational services for the child. The court noted that the child's excessive school absences during the father's care were concerning and largely unrelated to legitimate reasons.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that joint custody was not suitable due to the contentious nature of the parents' relationship. The father had reportedly insulted and undermined the mother, which could negatively impact the child's well-being. The court also expressed concern over the father's unilateral decisions regarding the child's education, such as arranging private services without the mother's consent.

The ruling emphasized the importance of the child's educational needs and the benefits of a structured school environment tailored to his needs through an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The court noted that the father's approach to providing services, while well-intentioned, did not adequately address the child's overall developmental needs.

This ruling has significant implications for custody arrangements, particularly in cases involving children with special needs. It underscores the courts' commitment to prioritizing the best interests of the child, especially in situations where one parent may not be fully supportive of the child's needs. The decision may serve as a precedent for future custody cases involving similar circumstances, reinforcing the importance of proactive involvement by custodial parents.

Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Craig Peru will seek further legal recourse. The court's decision can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but details on any such plans were not available in the court filing. As of now, the ruling stands, granting sole custody to Frances Monique Peru and emphasizing the need for a supportive and stable environment for their child.