A New York Family Court has dismissed custody petitions filed by a mother seeking to regain custody of her two children, citing jurisdictional issues under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The ruling, made by Judge Robert A. Markoff on March 27, 2026, affects the mother's legal rights regarding her children, who currently reside with their paternal grandparents and father in New York.
The case, known as Matter of N.A. v. A.U., File No. 274203, centers around a custody dispute that began in Uzbekistan and has now crossed international boundaries. The ruling highlights the complexities of custody cases that involve foreign jurisdictions and the legal standards that govern them.
The dispute began when the mother, N.A., and the father, A.U., who were married in January 2018 and divorced later that year, had four children together. The two oldest children, twins Z. and K., were taken to Uzbekistan by the mother in 2019. The father claims this was a temporary arrangement, while the mother argues it was meant for a family visit. When the mother attempted to return to New York, the paternal grandparents allegedly withheld the twins' travel documents, leading her to return without them.
In 2020, the mother secured custody of the twins through a court order in Uzbekistan. However, the situation changed in February 2025 when a court in Uzbekistan awarded custody to the paternal grandparents. By December 2025, the twins were brought to New York, where the mother then filed petitions for custody and habeas corpus in New York Family Court.
Judge Markoff's ruling addressed whether the New York court had the authority to modify the Uzbekistan custody order. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, which governs custody cases involving multiple jurisdictions. According to the ruling, New York can only modify a foreign custody order if it has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination.
The court stated, "This Court may not modify the Uzbekistan court order because this state lacks jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under Domestic Relations Law § 76(1)(a) or (b)." This means that since the twins had not lived in New York for at least six consecutive months prior to the mother's filing, New York was not considered their home state.
The ruling also noted that the Uzbekistan court had not declined jurisdiction over the case, which further complicated the mother's petitions. Judge Markoff emphasized that the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the mother could potentially file again if circumstances change, such as if the children and their parents continue to reside in New York for six months.
The impact of this ruling is significant for the mother and the children. It underscores the challenges parents face when dealing with custody disputes that cross international borders. The decision also reinforces the importance of jurisdictional rules in custody cases, which are designed to protect the best interests of children.
Moving forward, the ruling indicates that if the family remains in New York, the court may eventually have the authority to hear a new custody petition. However, until then, the current custody arrangement, which grants custody to the paternal grandparents, remains in place.
As for what’s next, the mother has the option to appeal the ruling, but details on whether she plans to do so were not available in the court filing. The case highlights ongoing legal complexities in custody disputes, especially those that involve multiple jurisdictions and international law.
The court filing did not name the attorneys for either side, but it did mention that Cyprianne Lateepa Rookwood represented the mother, Igor Niman represented the father, and Shamira Nawz of the Children's Law Center represented the children.