The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York recently ruled on a custody and family offense case involving parents Raelene KK. and Anthony LL. The court's decision, issued on June 11, 2026, affects the parenting arrangements for their child, born in 2020. The ruling underscores the court's focus on the best interests of the child amid allegations of domestic violence and disputes over custody.
In this case, the court addressed multiple petitions filed by both parents. Raelene KK. filed two family offense petitions against Anthony LL., alleging that he committed several offenses, including threats of violence. She also sought sole custody of their child, with supervised visitation for the father. Anthony LL. responded by filing his own petitions for custody and alleging that Raelene had also committed family offenses. The Family Court initially granted Raelene custody and issued an order of protection against Anthony, leading to his appeal.
The dispute began when Raelene and Anthony separated before the birth of their child. After the child was born, Raelene became the primary caregiver, with only limited overnight visits to Anthony. In July and August 2023, she filed her family offense petitions, which led to a temporary order granting her custody and supervised parenting time for Anthony. In May 2024, Anthony filed his petitions, resulting in a two-day hearing where both parents presented evidence of their claims.
The Family Court found that Raelene had demonstrated that Anthony committed the family offense of harassment. The court noted, "The petitioner in a family offense proceeding bears the burden of establishing, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent committed one or more of the family offenses specified in Family Ct Act § 821 (1) (a)." The court ruled that Anthony's actions, including pushing Raelene while she was pregnant and sending threatening messages, constituted harassment.
During the hearing, Raelene testified about various instances of domestic violence, including an occasion when Anthony kicked her in the stomach while she was pregnant. She also presented text messages where Anthony threatened her physically, stating he would "come stomp yo f***ing eyes out yo head" and "punch you . . . in ur mouth for keeping me from my daughter." Although Anthony denied harming Raelene, he acknowledged that threats were exchanged between them.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of Raelene, granting her sole legal and physical custody of their child. The court stated, "Family Court's paramount concern is the best interests of the child." It considered several factors, including the quality of each parent's home environment and their willingness to support a positive relationship between the child and the other parent. The court found that Raelene had been the child's primary caregiver and had consistently provided for the child's needs.
The ruling also noted that Anthony's violent behavior and threats against Raelene raised concerns about the child's safety. The court determined that unsupervised visitation would not be appropriate, given the history of domestic violence and Anthony's threats to take the child away. The court stated, "Family Court may properly order supervised visitation if it finds that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child's safety because the parent is either unable or unwilling to discharge his or her parental responsibility properly."
The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's decision, affirming the order without costs. The ruling emphasized the importance of protecting the child from potential harm and ensuring that the child's best interests were prioritized. The court's opinion highlighted the credibility determinations made by the Family Court, noting that it had a superior ability to observe witnesses and evaluate their credibility.
This ruling has significant implications for both parents and their child. It reinforces the court's commitment to ensuring a safe and stable environment for children involved in custody disputes, particularly in cases involving allegations of domestic violence. The decision also sets a precedent for how family offense petitions are handled in the context of custody determinations.
Moving forward, Anthony has the option to appeal the Appellate Division's ruling. However, details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case highlights the complexities of family law, especially when domestic violence is involved, and the courts' role in navigating these sensitive issues.