A New York appellate court has issued a ruling in a custody dispute involving Justine N., a mother, and Michelle P., the children's grandmother. The court decided to modify the custody arrangement, granting the grandmother sole legal custody of the children while addressing the mother's visitation rights. This ruling affects the family dynamics of three children and emphasizes the importance of stable custody arrangements.
The case, officially titled Matter of Justine N. v. Michelle P., was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on June 4, 2026. The ruling stemmed from a series of petitions filed by both Justine N. and Michelle P. regarding the custody and visitation arrangements for the children, who were born in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The court's decision underscores the complexities of custody arrangements, especially when they involve non-parents like grandparents.
The dispute began in January 2016, when a custody order was established that granted joint legal custody of the children to Justine N., Mark O. (the father), and Michelle P. The order designated Michelle P. as the primary physical custodian, allowing the mother and father to have parenting time as they could agree. However, the situation changed when Justine N. filed a modification petition in April 2024, claiming that Michelle P. was not allowing her to visit or communicate with the children. In response, Michelle P. filed her own petition seeking sole legal custody and a transfer of jurisdiction to Virginia for any future proceedings.
The Family Court held a fact-finding hearing in January 2025 and later conducted a Lincoln hearing, which is a type of hearing to determine the wishes of the children involved. In April 2025, Family Court denied Justine N.'s petition and granted Michelle P.'s request for sole legal custody. Justine N. subsequently appealed the decision, leading to the current ruling.
The court ruled that Justine N. had to demonstrate a change in circumstances since the original custody order to justify a reexamination of visitation arrangements. For Michelle P., as a non-parent, she needed to establish extraordinary circumstances to warrant a modification of custody. The court noted that extraordinary circumstances could include abandonment, neglect, or a prolonged separation between the parent and child.
During the hearings, evidence revealed that after the 2016 custody order, the children lived continuously with their grandmother in Virginia, with minimal contact from their mother. The court found that Justine N. had shown sporadic interest in the children, which included only one visit in 2016 that ended poorly. The court noted that the children were thriving under their grandmother's care, excelling in academics and extracurricular activities, and receiving counseling for emotional issues stemming from their time with their mother.
In the ruling, the court stated, "the evidence bore out a prolonged separation between the mother and children, during which she voluntarily relinquished their care and control to the grandmother." The court also highlighted the mother's history of drug abuse and legal troubles, which contributed to the decision to grant sole custody to Michelle P. The judges involved in the ruling included Pritzker, Ceresia, Fisher, McShan, and Corcoran.
While the court affirmed the grandmother's sole legal custody, it also modified the visitation arrangement for Justine N. The court found that the Family Court had erred by denying her a set visitation schedule. The judges noted that the relationship between Justine N. and Michelle P. had deteriorated to the point where mutual agreement on visitation was unlikely. The court emphasized that it could not delegate its authority to determine visitation to either party or the children.
The court ordered that the matter be remitted to Family Court for the development of a more definitive visitation schedule. The ruling stated that Family Court must decide the amount, duration, and location of visitation, as well as any other provisions to promote a healthy relationship between Justine N. and the children. The court acknowledged the mother's willingness to engage in therapeutic visitation, which should be considered in future proceedings.
This ruling has significant implications for custody cases involving grandparents and non-parents. It highlights the importance of establishing stable custody arrangements that prioritize the best interests of the children. The decision also emphasizes the need for clear communication and cooperation between parents and custodians to ensure the well-being of the children.
As for what comes next, the case can be appealed further, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases. The Family Court will now need to address the visitation schedule and any other necessary arrangements to facilitate a relationship between Justine N. and her children.