A New York Family Court recently ruled on a custody case involving a father, K.B., and mother, B.H., leading to significant implications for their family. The court dismissed the case due to jurisdictional issues, stating that neither parent nor the child currently resides in New York. This decision affects the father's ability to modify custody arrangements while he serves an 11-year prison sentence in New Jersey.

The case, titled Matter of K.B. v. B.H., was decided on September 8, 2026, by Judge Robert A. Markoff in Kings County Family Court. The ruling is crucial as it outlines how the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) applies to families with members living in different states, particularly when one parent is incarcerated.

Background

The dispute began in December 2021 when K.B. and B.H. reached a custody agreement in New York's Kings County Supreme Court. This agreement granted B.H. sole custody of their child, with K.B. receiving specified visitation rights. The agreement also included a stipulation that B.H. could not relocate with the child beyond a 20-mile radius without K.B.'s consent.

However, in December 2023, K.B. filed a petition claiming that B.H. violated this agreement by moving to Fort Lee, New Jersey, without his permission. He argued that this relocation hindered his ability to maintain a relationship with their child. In June 2024, K.B. amended his petition, stating that B.H.'s move was beyond the agreed-upon distance and that her actions were consistently disrupting their visitation schedule.

In December 2025, K.B. was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison, prompting his mother, the child's paternal grandmother, to file a petition for visitation rights. She expressed concern that B.H. would limit her access to the child, which she had maintained before K.B.'s incarceration. Additionally, K.B.'s half-sibling also filed a petition to preserve their relationship with the child.

The Ruling

Judge Markoff ruled that the New York Family Court lacked jurisdiction over the case, stating, "The child and both parents do not presently reside in New York." This ruling was based on the interpretation of the UCCJEA, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the state that made the initial custody determination until certain conditions are met.

The court found that K.B. did not meet the definition of residing in New York because he was serving his sentence in New Jersey. The ruling emphasized that the term "presently reside" focuses on a person's current physical location rather than their legal domicile or intent to return to a state. The judge noted, "The father's physical presence in New Jersey will be of such length that the child will have aged out of family court custody jurisdiction before the expiration of the father's sentence."

As a result of this interpretation, the court dismissed all petitions related to custody and visitation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of jurisdictional clarity in custody disputes involving multiple states.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for families navigating custody disputes across state lines, particularly when one parent is incarcerated. The decision reinforces the idea that physical presence is crucial in determining jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. It suggests that courts will prioritize the child's current living situation over legal definitions of residence.

The ruling may also set a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing that courts must carefully consider where all parties are living to determine jurisdiction. This could lead to more cases being dismissed if parents relocate or if one parent is incarcerated, potentially complicating custody arrangements for families.

What's Next

The ruling can be appealed, but it remains to be seen whether K.B. or other parties will pursue further legal action. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence future custody disputes involving parents in different states or those who are incarcerated.