The New York Appellate Division recently ruled in the custody case of Matter of Liebetreu v. Sennett, affirming a lower court's decision that requires a mother to return her children to their father after she relocated without permission. This ruling affects the family involved, particularly the children, and emphasizes the importance of adhering to custody agreements.
The case centers around Daniel T. Liebetreu, the petitioner and father, and Ashley R. Sennett, the respondent and mother. The dispute arose after Sennett moved with the children from Jefferson County, New York, to Maine while Liebetreu was deployed in the Middle East. The court's decision reinforces the significance of existing parenting agreements, especially during times of separation due to military service.
The legal proceedings began when Liebetreu filed a petition to enforce their parenting agreement, which was part of their divorce decree but not fully merged into it. The Family Court of Jefferson County ruled in favor of Liebetreu, stating that Sennett had violated the custody order by relocating without consent. Sennett subsequently appealed the ruling, leading to the recent decision by the Appellate Division.
On June 26, 2026, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, issued its ruling on the case, docket number 345 CAF 25-00637. The court unanimously affirmed the lower court's order, stating, "The court did not err in determining that [Sennett] violated an order of custody by unilaterally relocating to Maine with the children while the father was on military deployment in the Middle East." The judges involved in this decision included Whalen, Curran, Ogden, Nowak, and Delconte.
The court's ruling highlighted that the parenting agreement clearly prohibited either parent from unilaterally relocating with the children outside Jefferson County. The agreement was interpreted as a lawful court order, which Sennett was aware of, and her actions were deemed to have prejudiced Liebetreu's rights under the agreement. The court noted that the mother failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that moving to Maine was in the best interests of the children.
In addition to affirming the enforcement of the parenting agreement, the court also addressed Sennett's cross-petition to modify the agreement to allow her relocation. The court found that she did not meet her burden of proof to demonstrate that the move would benefit the children. The judges stated, "The evidence presented at the hearing supports the court's determination that the proposed relocation would have a detrimental impact on the children's relationship with the father."
The ruling in this case has significant implications for future custody disputes, particularly those involving military families. It underscores the importance of adhering to custody agreements and the potential consequences of violating them. The decision also serves as a reminder that courts will carefully evaluate the best interests of children when considering relocation requests by custodial parents.
Moving forward, this ruling sets a precedent that reinforces the need for parents to comply with existing custody arrangements, especially during times of separation due to military service. It highlights that unilateral decisions regarding relocation can have serious legal consequences and may affect the relationships between parents and their children.
As for the future of this case, Sennett may seek to appeal the ruling to a higher court, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. Currently, there are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.