A New York court has denied a mother's request to change custody arrangements and relocate her child to Guyana. The ruling, issued by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on May 27, 2026, affects the custody of a child born in December 2016. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining stability in the child's life and prioritizing their best interests.
The case, known as Matter of Roopnauth-Tajeshwar v. Tajeshwar (Docket No. 2024-12701), arose from a previous agreement between the mother, Hamantini Ranju Roopnauth-Tajeshwar, and the father, Danesh Tajeshwar. In a stipulation dated January 24, 2023, the parties agreed that the father would have legal and primary residential custody of their child, with the mother having parental access.
In March 2024, Roopnauth-Tajeshwar filed a petition seeking to modify the existing custody arrangement. She aimed to obtain primary residential custody and permission to relocate the child from New York to Guyana. The Family Court in Queens County, presided over by Judge Gilbert A. Taylor, held a hearing on the matter and ultimately denied the mother's request in an order dated November 18, 2024.
The court's ruling was based on the legal standard that requires a parent seeking to modify custody arrangements to demonstrate a change in circumstances that justifies the modification in the child's best interests. According to the court, “In order to modify an existing court-ordered custody or parental access arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child.”
During the hearing, the Family Court found that the child was thriving in the father's care and living in a stable environment. The court noted, “The evidence presented at the hearing established that the child was doing well in the father's care in a stable home environment.” Furthermore, the mother did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that relocating to Guyana would benefit the child emotionally or educationally, nor did she show that the move would not negatively affect the child's relationship with the father.
The Appellate Division, which included Judges Mark C. Dillon, William G. Ford, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez, affirmed the Family Court's decision. They concluded that the Family Court's determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The judges stated that the mother’s failure to prove the benefits of the proposed relocation was a significant factor in their decision.
This ruling underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that custody decisions are made with the child's best interests at the forefront. The court highlighted that a parent seeking to relocate with a child bears the burden of proof to establish that the move would be in the child's best interests.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate case. It reinforces the standard that courts will apply in custody disputes, particularly in cases where one parent seeks to relocate with a child. Parents must be prepared to demonstrate that any proposed changes to custody arrangements will positively impact the child's well-being.
Going forward, this decision may influence similar custody cases in New York and beyond. It serves as a reminder that stability and continuity in a child's life are crucial factors that courts consider when making custody determinations. Parents who wish to modify custody arrangements or relocate with their children must present compelling evidence to support their claims.
As for the future of this case, the mother has the option to appeal the ruling further. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The court's decision stands as a significant precedent in custody law, particularly concerning relocation cases.