A New York appellate court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce a custody and visitation order in the case of J.V.B. v. H.E., affecting a mother’s attempt to gain custody of her children. The court's decision, issued on June 25, 2026, confirms that the Family Court in Bronx County cannot intervene in this matter because neither parent nor the children currently live in New York.
This ruling is significant for families involved in custody disputes, as it clarifies the jurisdictional limitations under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The case highlights the complexities that can arise when parents and children reside in different states, potentially leaving one parent without legal recourse in their home state.
Background
The case involves J.V.B., the mother, who filed a petition against H.E., the father, seeking enforcement of a prior custody and visitation order. The dispute arose after the father moved with the children to Alabama, while the mother had relocated to New Jersey. The Family Court in Bronx County initially handled the custody order, but the mother's enforcement petition was dismissed on November 29, 2024, due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The mother argued that the father violated the custody order by taking the children out of New York. However, the court found that jurisdiction had shifted away from New York because both parents and the children were now living outside the state. The mother’s petition was based solely on enforcement, not modification of the custody order, which further complicated the jurisdictional issue.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York unanimously affirmed the Family Court's decision to dismiss the enforcement petition. The court ruled, "Family Court no longer has 'exclusive, continuing jurisdiction' over this matter under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Domestic Relations Law § 75 et seq. (UCCJEA), as neither the children nor their parents presently live in this State." This ruling emphasizes that jurisdiction is determined by the current residency of the parties involved.
The judges on the panel included Webber, J.P., Kapnick, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, and Chan. They noted that even if the father had violated the custody order, the mother's residency in New Jersey deprived the Family Court of the authority to enforce the order. The court also pointed out that the mother had not filed any modification petition, which could have provided a basis for jurisdiction.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for custody disputes, particularly in cases where parents live in different states. It underscores the importance of understanding jurisdictional issues under the UCCJEA, which governs custody matters across state lines. The decision clarifies that a parent cannot simply file a petition in a state where they previously had jurisdiction if they no longer reside there.
The ruling serves as a reminder for parents involved in custody disputes to be aware of their residency status and how it affects their legal standing. It may also encourage parents to seek legal advice when navigating custody issues, especially when they involve multiple states.
What's Next
The court's decision can be appealed, but it remains to be seen if the mother will pursue further legal action. There are no indications in the court filing of any related cases pending that could affect this ruling.