New York Law Watch
Family Law
Family relationships and Family Court proceedings are filed here, including records on custody, support, parentage and child protection.
Mental health proceedings are grouped here, including records on treatment, confinement and the procedures governing applications under the Mental Hygiene Law.
For Family Law, Law Watch lists 122 indexable decisions dated January 15, 2026 to November 12, 2026 across 14 decision weeks.
155 decision records: 122 meet the substance floor; 33 records are held from search listings.
The records below come from 7 courts and include both primary and secondary area classifications.
This collection also includes Mental Hygiene Law.
Browse by year
Recent decisions
- Matter of C.R.2026 NY Slip Op 06584
The petition was properly dismissed for facial insufficiency because the uncertified, unverified, and unsigned grand jury minutes submitted were hearsay, and the petition did not otherwise contain any nonhearsay allegations. The Presentment Agency was permitted to appeal the dismissal order because the respondent’s motion to dismiss was filed untimely, causing the order to be entered after the fact-finding hearing had commenced.
- Matter of Scott E. v Annette D.2026 NY Slip Op 06597
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s award of primary physical custody to the father, finding that the mother’s relocation and the breakdown of the parties’ informal agreement constituted a change in circumstances. The court determined that the father provided a more stable environment given the mother’s ongoing struggle with alcoholism and her failure to disclose her relocation.
- Matter of S.L. v R.S.M.2026 NY Slip Op 06574
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s denial of the father’s petition for custody modification, finding no change in circumstances and upholding the lower court’s credibility determinations. The court also determined that any error in admitting the mother’s diary was harmless because the father failed to demonstrate prejudice.
- Matter of A.M. (N.L.)2026 NY Slip Op 06554
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s finding that the appellant was legally responsible for the child and had abused the child, as the evidence established caretaking responsibilities and nonaccidental trauma. The court rejected the appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and bias, finding that counsel pursued a reasonable strategy and no specific prejudicial conduct was identified.
- Matter of Hasko v Kikalenios2026 NY Slip Op 06439
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s dismissal of the father’s petition to modify custody, finding that his allegations of a change in circumstances warranted a full hearing. The court determined that the father made the requisite threshold evidentiary showing to require a plenary hearing on whether the existing custody arrangement continued to serve the child’s best interests.
- Matter of B.B.V. v D.S.S., Jr., et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06397
The Family Court properly dismissed the custody petition filed by the biological mother for lack of standing. The court determined that the mother lacked standing because the child had already been placed in the care and custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for adoption purposes prior to the filing of the petition.
- Matter of Andrew II. v Gail JJ.2026 NY Slip Op 06368
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order modifying custody to implement a graduated schedule for overnight visits and maintaining travel restrictions. The court found that the father’s inconsistent parenting and transportation issues provided a sound basis for requiring demonstrated reliability before expanding his access to the child.
- Peru v Peru2026 NY Slip Op 06392
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s award of sole legal and primary physical custody to the mother, finding that the father’s refusal to accept the child’s autism diagnosis and his failure to provide a realistic educational plan were detrimental to the child’s best interests. The court determined that joint custody was inappropriate due to the acrimonious relationship between the parties and the father’s undermining behavior.