Judicial Insight
Back to feed
( granted to the fathers)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of J.M. v. N.R.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 15, 2026
Docket
Index No. V-02960/21 V-10661/22 V-07902/21 V-10655/22|Appeal No. 7254-7254A|Case No. 2025-08219|
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 06012
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 16, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court, Bronx County: awarded respondent fathers sole legal and physical of their respective children with liberal parenting time to petitioner.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    ( granted to the fathers)

TL;DR

  1. 1Two fathers contested after the state removed the children from their mother.
  2. 2The court decided to give the fathers full legal and physical .
  3. 3The key reason was that the fathers created stable homes where the children could thrive.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Did the court make the right choice on ?

    Holding · Yes, the court found the fathers could provide better stability for the children.

Why it matters

This case affects the children's living situation and their relationship with both parents.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Two fathers fought for custody after kids were removed from their mother's care. Who should get custody?

  1. 1The state removed the kids from their mother's care, and now two fathers want full custody of their own children.
  2. 2The fathers have cared for their kids for years, handling school, medical needs, and providing stable homes.
  3. 3The mother wants more time with the kids, but the fathers think joint custody won't work due to trust issues.

Should the fathers get full of their kids or allow joint custody among them?

Vote to earn 10 Verdict Points

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of J.M.

  • Appellee

    N.R.

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of J.M. v N.R. 2026 NY Slip Op 06012 October 15, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of J.M., Petitioner-Appellant, v N.R., et al., Respondents-Respondents. Decided and Entered: October 15, 2026 Index No. V-02960/21 V-10661/22 V-07902/21 V-10655/22|Appeal No. 7254-7254A|Case No. 2025-08219| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Shulman, Rodriguez, Higgitt, Rosado, JJ. Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for N.R., respondent. Bruce A. Young, New York, for J.A., respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Daniel Abdul-Malak of counsel), attorney for the children. [*1] Orders (one for each child), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith D. Waksberg, J.), entered on or about October 29, 2025, which awarded respondent fathers sole legal and physical custody of their respective children with liberal parenting time to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Family Court's orders awarding full legal and physical custody of the subject children to their respective fathers have a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Gregory L.B. v Magdelena G., 68 AD3d 478, 479 [1st Dept 2009]). Both fathers testified that the children have lived with them for years following their removal from the mother's care by the Administration for Children's Services. The evidence adduced at trial revealed that the fathers were better able to provide a loving and stable home for the children, where they could thrive physically and emotionally (see Matter of Nyron P. v Giselle A., 155 AD3d 545, 545 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Dedon G. v Zenhia G., 125 AD3d 419, 419-420 [1st Dept 2015]). Further, the fathers' testimony established that they took the children to school, managed all their medical appointments and health needs, and provided for them financially (see Matter of Paul D. v Margarita O., 227 AD3d 439, 440 [1st Dept 2024]; see also Matter of Tylaeya C. v Karl S., 187 AD3d 402, 402-403 [1st Dept 2020]). Given the mistrust and lack of communication between the parties, the court properly declined to grant joint custody (see Matter of Stephanie C. v Ricardo E., 231 AD3d 663, 664 [1st Dept 2024]). The court's orders also provide the children with continuity and stability while granting the mother continued liberal visitation with the children (see id.). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 15, 2026
View on CourtListener