A New York appellate court has upheld a two-year order of protection granted to a father and his two children against their mother. The decision, made on May 12, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, was based on a finding that the mother committed the family offense of disorderly conduct. This ruling affects the family dynamic and the mother's ability to interact with her children.

The case, known as Matter of A.E.R. v. A.B., arose from a dispute between the parents regarding the mother's behavior during a public incident. The Family Court had previously found that the mother engaged in violent and threatening behavior, which led to the issuance of the protective order. This ruling is significant as it highlights the court's stance on protecting children and ensuring their safety in potentially harmful family situations.

Background

The parties involved in this case are A.E.R., the father and petitioner, and A.B., the mother and appellant. The dispute centers around allegations of disorderly conduct by the mother during an incident that occurred on September 30, 2023. The father sought protection for himself and their two children, arguing that the mother's actions posed a threat to their safety.

The case reached the Appellate Division after the Family Court in New York County, presided over by Judge Crystal R. Villasenor, granted the order of protection. The mother appealed the decision, arguing that the Family Court's findings were based on incidents not included in the original petition and that she was unfairly surprised by the allegations against her.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Family Court's ruling, stating that the mother's claims did not warrant overturning the order of protection. The court noted that the mother did not object to the Family Court's consideration of evidence not explicitly mentioned in the petition. The ruling stated, "Although Family Court based its finding that the mother committed the family offense of disorderly conduct, in part, on incidents not alleged in the petition, it does not warrant vacatur under the circumstances presented here."

The judges involved in this decision included Presiding Justice Renwick and Justices Friedman, Kapnick, Pitt-Burke, and O'Neill Levy. The court emphasized that the mother had a fair opportunity to contest the allegations during the fact-finding hearing and that the evidence supported the Family Court's findings. The ruling highlighted the mother's behavior on the specified date, stating that she acted "with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm" by engaging in violent behavior and using abusive language in a public space.

Impact

The ruling has significant implications for the family involved, particularly for the children. The order of protection not only safeguards the father but also extends to the children, reflecting the court's commitment to ensuring their safety. The court found that the mother's threatening statements were made in the presence of the children, reinforcing the necessity of the protective order.

This decision also sets a precedent regarding the inclusion of children in protective orders when their safety is at risk. The court's ruling indicates that the presence of children during threatening behavior can justify such protective measures. Furthermore, the order allows for court-ordered visitation and contact between the mother and the children, which aims to maintain their relationship while ensuring their safety.

What's Next

The mother may have the option to appeal the decision further, but details regarding any potential subsequent appeals were not available in the court filing. There are currently no related cases pending that would affect this ruling.