Case Update (17 Sept 2026): In re Nikolai A.; New York registers Tajik visitation orders, finding the family’s circumstances substantially conformed to the UCCJEA’s jurisdictional standards
The parents and their daughter lived in Russia, where, in November 2019, the Balashikha City Court entered an agreed order giving the Father a weekly 2.5-hour walk with the child near the Mother’s home, in the Mother’s presence. By early 2021, the Mother, Father, child, and maternal grandmother had all moved to Tajikistan. In August 2021, the Father sued in the Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe, which, with both parents appearing, ordered weekly seven-hour visits. The Mother appealed, and the cassation panel rejected her appeal and set the visits for Saturdays at a location of the Father’s choosing. When the Mother refused to hand over the child, the Father went back to court. In April 2022, the district court ordered her to stop obstructing contact; she did not appear despite notice. Enforcement efforts in Tajikistan followed, and the Mother eventually came to the United States. In June 2026, the Father asked the Kings County Family Court to register the Tajik orders. The Mother objected on two grounds. First, she argued that Russia, not Tajikistan, had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. Second, she argued that she had no notice of the 2022 and 2023 proceedings.
Under DRL § 75-d, New York treats a foreign country as if it were a U.S. state and recognizes a foreign custody determination made under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA’s jurisdictional standards. Neither Russia nor Tajikistan has the UCCJEA, and each court acted under its own internal law. The question for New York was whether the family’s factual circumstances substantially conform with the UCCJEA’s jurisdictional standards. The court treated the 2019 Russian order as the initial determination, which made the Tajik order a modification. Under DRL §§ 76-a and 76-b, any exclusive, continuing jurisdiction attributable to Russia ended once the child and both parents had left Russia, months before the Tajik case began. No home state was established by the evidence before the court, so the court looked to the significant-connection standard in DRL § 76(1)(b), and the facts met it. The parents, child, and grandmother all lived in Dushanbe, the Mother worked there, the Father supported the child there, and nothing suggested a plan to return to Russia. The court contrasted In re Marriage of Sareen, where the parties still lived in the United States and the father filed in India nine days after arriving.
On notice, the Mother had taken part in the 2021 trial and brought the appeal herself. The April 2022 order recited that she was properly notified and offered no excuse for her absence. She claimed she moved to Mexico in October 2022, but that was after the hearing, and the airline receipt she offered for round-trip travel in late 2023 undercut her account rather than supporting it. She did not argue that Tajik custody law violates fundamental principles of human rights. The court also noted that, in the Tajik proceedings, the Mother had called the Russian agreement obsolete and never raised Russia’s jurisdiction on appeal. She has also never sought to register the Russian order. The objection was denied, and the Tajik visitation orders were registered.
Although the opinion at times describes Tajikistan as having jurisdiction under New York’s statute, the court’s analysis turns on whether the family’s circumstances substantially conformed to New York’s UCCJEA standards, not on whether the Tajik court applied them.
