A New York appellate court has modified a parental access order involving Francine S. Chew and Michael I. Iheukumere, affecting the father's rights to see his children. The court's decision, issued on November 12, 2026, comes after a hearing where the mother sought to change the existing arrangement. The ruling is significant as it addresses the conditions under which a parent can regain access to their children.

The case originated in the Family Court of Kings County, where the parties were involved in a custody dispute over their two children, both born in 2012. The couple divorced in July 2016, with the mother receiving sole physical and legal custody of the children. The father had previously been granted certain rights to parental access, which were modified in a prior order dated September 14, 2022.

In January 2023, the mother filed a petition to further modify the father's access to their children, citing concerns about the children's welfare. After a hearing, the Family Court issued an order on October 29, 2024, which suspended the father's unsupervised access and required him to complete a parenting class or enroll in therapy before he could petition for modification of access rights. This order prompted the father to appeal.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York ruled on the father's appeal, stating that the Family Court had the authority to modify parental access based on a change in circumstances. The court noted, "The court's determination that unsupervised parental access would be detrimental to the children's welfare and contrary to their best interests had a sound and substantial basis in the record." The ruling emphasized the importance of the children's welfare in custody decisions.

However, the appellate court found fault with the Family Court's requirement that the father complete a parenting class or therapy before he could petition for future access modifications. The court stated, "A court may not direct that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future parental access or reapplication for parental access rights." As a result, the appellate court modified the order to eliminate these conditions but affirmed the suspension of the father's unsupervised parental access.

This ruling has important implications for future custody cases in New York. It clarifies that while courts can require counseling or treatment as part of a visitation order, they cannot impose such requirements as conditions for a parent to petition for access rights. This decision reinforces the principle that parental access is presumed to be in the best interests of the child, unless proven otherwise.

Moving forward, this case may influence how family courts handle similar disputes regarding parental access and the conditions under which parents can regain access to their children. Parents seeking to modify custody or access orders will need to be aware of their rights and the standards that courts will apply in these situations.

As for the father in this case, he may still appeal the ruling or seek to modify his access rights in the future without the previous conditions imposed by the Family Court. The outcome of this case may also affect other parents in similar situations who are navigating the complexities of custody and parental access.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential related cases or further appeals that may arise from this decision. The court's ruling in this matter underscores the ongoing challenges faced by families in custody disputes and the critical role of the courts in ensuring the best interests of children are prioritized.