A New York court recently ruled in the custody case of Matter of Carrington v. Pepitone, granting sole legal and residential custody of a child to the father, James D. Carrington. The decision affects the child's mother, Melanie A. Pepitone, who sought sole custody herself. This ruling is significant as it highlights the court's focus on the child's best interests in custody disputes.
The case, docket number 2024-05766, was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on July 1, 2026. The court's ruling came after a series of hearings in Family Court, where both parents presented their cases regarding custody and parental access. The decision emphasizes the importance of stability and the ability of each parent to foster a positive relationship with the child.
The parties involved in this case are James D. Carrington and Melanie A. Pepitone, who are the parents of a child born in 2022. The couple was never married. Prior to the court's ruling, the mother was the primary caretaker of the child and resided in Suffolk County, New York. The father lived in Massachusetts and had been granted temporary parental access. In December 2022, Carrington filed a petition for sole legal and residential custody of the child. In January 2023, Pepitone responded with her own cross-petition for the same.
After a hearing, the Family Court issued an order on July 5, 2024, which denied Pepitone's request for sole custody and granted Carrington sole custody instead. The court also allowed the child to relocate to Massachusetts with the father and set a parental access schedule for the mother, which included visits on alternating weekends and every Wednesday for dinner. Pepitone appealed this decision.
The Appellate Division reviewed the Family Court's decision and ultimately upheld the ruling to grant Carrington sole legal and residential custody. The court stated, "the determination to award the father sole legal and residential custody of the child was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record." The judges involved in the decision included Angela G. Iannacci, Helen Voutsinas, Donna-Marie E. Golia, and Susan Quirk.
However, the Appellate Division found issues with the parental access schedule set forth by the Family Court. The court noted that the schedule allowing Pepitone access only on alternating weekends and Wednesdays was insufficient, given the distance between the parents' homes. The judges emphasized that parental access is a joint right of both the noncustodial parent and the child, and that reasonable access should be provided absent extraordinary circumstances.
The Appellate Division modified the Family Court's order, stating that a new, more liberal schedule for parental access should be established. The court instructed the Family Court to create a schedule that would allow for more frequent visits for Pepitone and to set specific access rights for the parents' birthdays. Additionally, the court ordered that the Family Court should determine how the costs of transportation for the child would be shared between the parents.
This ruling is significant as it underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that children maintain meaningful relationships with both parents, regardless of custody arrangements. The decision also reflects the importance of considering the economic realities of parental access and transportation costs in custody cases.
The ruling in Matter of Carrington v. Pepitone may set a precedent for future custody disputes, particularly in cases where one parent seeks to relocate. The court's emphasis on the best interests of the child, as well as the need for a balanced parental access schedule, may influence how similar cases are handled in the future.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Pepitone will appeal the Appellate Division's decision. The court has remitted the case back to the Family Court for a new determination regarding parental access, which will need to be made promptly. There are no indications of any related cases pending at this time.