Case Update (27 March 2026): NA v. AU; jurisdiction to modify foreign child custody order
The Family Court in Kings County, New York was asked to determine whether it had custody to modify an Uzbek custody order pursuant to NY’s enactment of the UCCJEA. As with any UCCJEA case, the timeline is critical. In this case, the Mother and Father are parents to four children. All were born in New York. In 2019, the Mother took the two oldest children (twins) to Uzbekistan for a visit. The Mother alleged that when she went to retrieve the children to return to NY, the paternal grandparents withheld the twins’ travel documents, so she returned to NY alone. In 2020, the Mother commenced an initial child custody proceeding in Uzbekistan. At this time, both Mother and Father and the two younger children were in NY. The two older children were living in Uzbekistan with their paternal grandparents. The Uzbek court awarded the Mother custody of the twins. She then asserted that she could not go and retrieve them, because in 2020 and 2022, the two youngest children were born. The Father and the children’s attorney asserted that Mother left the twins in Uzbekistan. The Mother then filed for custody in New York in September 2024, the case of which was dismissed due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In February 2025, the Uzbek court modified its custody order, and granted the twins’ custody to their paternal grandparents. In December 2025, apparently the twins and their paternal grandparents were now residing in NY with the Father. That month, in fact, four days later, the Mother sought a modification of the Uzbek order granting the grandparents custody. The Father presented the NY court with the Uzbek order, seeking the dismissal of the Mother’s modification suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The court started its analysis, first, with whether it should recognize the Uzbek order. It concluded that under DOM 75-d[1], Uzbekistan is considered a foreign country that entered its child custody order under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA. The Mother contended that Uzbek custody law violated fundamental principles of human rights, but the NY court found Uzbekistan to have conducted a full hearing at which the Mother was represented by counsel, and that the court applied the best interests of the children standard. Therefore, the order is entitled to be recognized and enforced in NY. The court then turned to whether it was permitted, under NY’s enactment of the UCCJEA to modify the Uzbek order. The court concluded that it could only modify the Uzbek custody order after determining whether it had initial child custody jurisdiction under DOM 76. The prioritized basis for child custody jurisdiction is the child’s home state, defined as the location of the child’s residence for at least six consecutive months (minus any temporary absences) with a parent or a person acting as a parent at the time of filing the suit. NY is not the twins’ home state on the date the Mother filed her modification suit. The twins were only present in NY for four days before the Mother sought to modify the Uzbek custody order. Therefore, the NY court concluded that Uzbekistan remained the children’s home state, had already made an initial child custody jurisdiction that is in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA, and had continuing exclusive jurisdiction. There is no evidence that a court in Uzbekistan has declined to exercise its jurisdiction to modify the child custody order. Presumably, if everyone continues to live in New York, after six months of residence, the children will presumably shift their home state to NY, and there may be subject matter jurisdiction to modify the order. Therefore, in this unpublished opinion, the Family Court dismissed the case without prejudice.
The Court declined the exercise its emergency temporary jurisdiction, believing there was no real and immediate emergency, despite Mother’s assertion that the Father intended to send the children back to Uzbekistan.
