Attorneys and Parties

Rosanna Parco
Appellant
Attorneys: Ashley P. Grolig

Christopher T. Parco
Respondent

Brief Summary

Issue

Family law child-custody jurisdiction. The issue was whether the Family Court could dismiss a mother's custody-modification petition without determining jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Domestic Relations Law article 5-A [New York's interstate child-custody jurisdiction statute]).

Lower Court Held

The Family Court, on its own initiative and without a hearing, dismissed the mother's 2025 petition on the ground that the application had already been addressed in a prior August 15, 2024 order.

What Was Overturned

The Appellate Division reversed the March 20, 2025 order dismissing the 2025 custody-modification petition, reinstated the petition, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Why

The Family Court failed to determine whether it had jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76 [provision governing initial child-custody jurisdiction, including home-state jurisdiction], failed to consider temporary emergency jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76-c [temporary emergency jurisdiction], failed to determine whether another state's custody proceeding was pending as required by Domestic Relations Law § 76-e(1) [requires a stay and court-to-court communication when another state has a pending custody case], and failed to address the inconvenient-forum factors and stay requirement under Domestic Relations Law § 76-f [lists factors for deciding whether New York is an inconvenient forum and requires a conditional stay if another state is designated].

Background

The parties divorced in New York under a December 2, 2022 judgment of divorce that incorporated but did not merge a September 15, 2021 stipulation of settlement. After the divorce, both parties relocated to Florida with their children. In March 2024, the mother and the children returned to New York. In April 2024, the mother filed a petition to modify custody and sought sole legal and residential custody, alleging, among other things, that the father committed domestic violence against her in the children's presence. That 2024 petition was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In March 2025, after the children had lived in New York for more than six months, the mother filed a second modification petition seeking the same relief.

Lower Court Decision

By order dated March 20, 2025, the Family Court, Richmond County, dismissed the 2025 petition without a hearing and on its own initiative, stating that the application had already been addressed in the court's prior August 15, 2024 decision and order.

Appellate Division Reversal

The Appellate Division held that the Family Court should have analyzed jurisdiction under the UCCJEA before dismissing the case. The appellate court noted that the Family Court did not decide whether New York had become the children's home state, whether temporary emergency jurisdiction existed, whether there was a custody proceeding pending in another state requiring a stay and communication with that court, or whether New York was an inconvenient forum after considering the statutory factors. The order was reversed, the petition was reinstated, and the matter was remitted for a determination, after a hearing if necessary, of whether the Family Court has jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law article 5-A.

Legal Significance

This decision emphasizes that in interstate custody disputes, a New York court must make the jurisdictional findings required by the UCCJEA before dismissing a custody petition. A prior dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not relieve the court of its obligation to reassess jurisdiction when circumstances may have changed, including when the children may now have lived in New York long enough for home-state jurisdiction to exist.

🔑 Key Takeaway

Before dismissing a custody-modification petition involving more than one state, the Family Court must explicitly address UCCJEA jurisdiction, including home-state status, emergency jurisdiction, any parallel out-of-state proceedings, and inconvenient-forum considerations.