IN RE: an Article 6 Custody/Visitation Proceeding Nikolai A. (2026)

Introduction

Before the Court is an Objection filed by the Respondent Mother, Ms. Juliana A. ("Respondent," "Mother," or "Ms. A.") filed June 26, 2026, to a request for registration of foreign custody orders dated filed by the Petitioner Father, Nikolai A. ("Petitioner," "Father," or "Mr. A."). For the reasons below, the Respondent's Objection is denied.

On June 9, 2026, Mr. A. filed a request to register various foreign orders from Tajikistan: an Order dated August 10, 2021 by the Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe; an Order dated November 20, 2021 by the Judicial Panel on Family Cases of the Dushanbe City Court; an Order dated April 20, 2022, by the Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe; and an Order dated January 26, 2023, by the Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe. The Court set the order for certification on July 8, 2026 if no objection was received; however, Ms. A., via counsel, filed a timely objection on June 26, 2026 and attached an additional order dated November 20, 2019 by the Balashikha City Court of the Moscow Region (Russia).

The relevant orders are summarized as follows:

Order dated November 20, 2019 (The Balashikha City Court of the Moscow Region [Russia]) (Dvukhzhilova, J.): The Father filed suit against the Mother, seeking "removal of obstacles" from the child and establishment of visitation. The court memorialized the agreement of the parties, which included granting the Father weekly 2.5-hour visits in the form of a walk near the Mother's home, in the presence of the Mother. The parents were also instructed to message each other in the event of an unexpected cancellation and about the child's general well-being. The Mother was also required to alert the Father about a change in the child's address.

Decision in the Name of the Republic of Tajikistan, dated August 10, 2021 (Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe [Tajikistan]) (Saydalizoda Sh., J.): The Father filed another suit against Mother in a Tajikistan Court seeking visitation. Both parties appeared in court. The Court ordered a weekly 7-hour visitation at a location set by the parties. The Court also instructed the Mother to not obstruct communication between the child and the Father.

Cassation Ruling, dated November 20, 2021 (Judicial Panel on Family Cases of the Dushanbe City Court [Tajikistan]) (Saidzoda, J.; Jobirzoda, J.; Safarzoda, J.): The Mother appealed the August 10, 2021 decision to the appellate-level ("cassation") Tajikistan Court, claiming the trial court failed "to properly evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by her, violating her rights and interests, and issuing an unlawful ruling." The Court dismissed the Mother's claims as unfounded and adjusted the order by scheduling the visits for Saturday at a location selected by the Father.

Decision in the Name of the Republic of Tajikistan, dated April 20, 2022 (Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe) (Isozoda, J.): The Father filed a case requesting for the Court to remove the obstacles to meetings and communications with his child created by the Mother. The Court found that the Mother's obstruction consisted of "her refusal to hand over the minor child to the plaintiff, despite the court ruling establishing the father's visitation schedule with the child." The Mother did not appear in court, "despite being properly informed of the date, time, and place of the court hearing," and did not offer any legal excuse for her absence. The Court ordered the Mother to remove obstacles and not interfere with communication between the Father and his child. The Court reiterated the visitation schedule of "once a week on Saturdays from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM"; however, the Court made a clerical error in setting the location to be "a designated location for children."

Court Ruling, dated January 26, 2023 (Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe [Tajikistan]) (Isozoda, J.): The typographical error in the previous Order dated Apr. 20, 2022 was corrected so that the 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday visits take place "at a location designated by the plaintiff."

On August 20, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the Mother's objection. Prior to the hearing, the Father submitted an affirmation in reply to the objection, a supplemental affirmation, and a supplemental memorandum of law. At the hearing, the Court asked several clarifying questions of both the Mother and Father and allowed both parties to present arguments. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court permitted both parties to submit any final arguments to the Court and directed the Mother to file by August 27, 2026 and the Father by September 3, 2026. The Mother filed an additional exhibit. On September 2, 2026, the Father filed a final reply memorandum of law.

The Court has reviewed the following documents  ¹ submitted by the parties on this contested registration application:

Order dated November 20, 2019 (The Balashikha City Court of the Moscow Region [Russia]) (Dvukhzhilova, J.)

Decision in the Name of the Republic of Tajikistan, dated August 10, 2021 (Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe [Tajikistan]) (Saydalizoda Sh., J.)

Cassation Ruling, dated November 20, 2021 (Judicial Panel on Family Cases of the Dushanbe City Court [Tajikistan]) (Saidzoda, J.; Jobirzoda, J.; Safarzoda, J.)

Decision in the Name of the Republic of Tajikistan, dated April 20, 2022 (Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe) (Isozoda, J.)

Court Ruling, dated January 26, 2023 (Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe [Tajikistan]) (Isozoda, J.)

Text messages between the parties, dated Apr. 20, 2021, July 13, 2021, June 29, 2021, and undated

Writ of Execution Regarding the family case, dated Nov. 11, 2021, No. 4-638/21 (Saydalizoda Sh., J.)

Statement of Record, dated July 2, 2022, Shohmansur District, Dushanbe. Commission members (Kabirov M — Secretary of the Commission on the Rights of the Child; Kalonzoda M. — District Inspector of the Department of Internal Affairs)

Report on Non-Execution of Court Order, dated Aug 30, 2022, Dushanbe, Enforcement Officers of the Enforcement Service in the Ismoili Somoni District of Dushanbe, Vohidov S.M., Rahimzoda J.H.

Decision in the Name of the Republic of Tajikistan, dated Sept. 20, 2022, Dushanbe (Shirinzoda Jurabek, J.)

Notice (declining to prosecute Mr. Nikolai A.), dated Sept. 20, 2022, Head, Colonel of Police, Ashurzoda A.Kh., Outgoing No. 367709-7 MP-254

Turkish Airlines Receipt, dated Oct. 18, 2023

Resolution regarding the compulsory appearance of the debtor, dated Mar. 4, 2024, Dushanbe, Safarzoda M.M., Bailiff of the Enforcement Service

Resolution on the temporary restriction of the debtor's departure from the territory of the Republic of Tajikistan, dated Mar. 4, 2024, Dushanbe, Safarzoda M.M., Bailiff of the Enforcement Service

Statement Regarding Failure to Locate the Respondent, dated May 17, 2024, Safarzoda M.M and Rahmonzoda A.A., Enforcement Officers of the I. Somani District, Dushanbe

Resolution on announcing a search for the debtor, dated Aug. 28, 2024, Dushanbe, Safarzoda M.M., Bailiff of the Enforcement Service

Temporary Order of Protection, O-01027-26, dated Jan. 8, 2026 (Kong, Ref.)

Affirmation of Ms. A. in Support of Registration of Out-of-State Visitation Order — UCCJEA, dated May 29, 2026

Affidavit of Ms. A., dated June 22, 2026

Birth Certificate of Katerina A.

Duplicate Writ of Execution regarding a family case (J. Murodzoda A.A.), undated

Application (to the Head of the Execution Service under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan) by Ms. A., undated

Legal Analysis

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 77-b, "A court of this state shall recognize and enforce a child custody determination of a court of another state if the latter court exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with this article[.]" Should a parent wish to register a foreign custody decree, DRL § 77—d then provides the procedure for doing so as well as the procedure for the other parent to contest such. See Pava v Atkinson, 180 AD3d 917, 918 [2d Dept 2020]. DRL § 77-d reads, in pertinent part, "A person seeking to contest the validity of a registered order must request a hearing within twenty days after service of the notice. At that hearing, the court shall confirm the registered order unless the person contesting registration establishes that: [a] the issuing court did not have jurisdiction under title two of this article; [b] the child custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under title two of this article; or [c] the person contesting registration was entitled to notice, but notice was not given in accordance with the standards of section seventy-five-g of this article, in the proceedings before the court that issued the order for which registration is sought." See also Worsoff v Worsoff, 161 AD3d 879 [2d Dept 2018].

The Mother objects to the registration of the Tajikistan orders on the following grounds: 1) that Tajikistan did not have jurisdiction to issue the orders from August 10, 2021, November 20, 2021, April 20, 2022, or January 26, 2023; and 2) the Mother was not provided with any notice of or opportunity to be heard during the proceedings from April 20, 2022 or January 26, 2023. The Mother argues that Tajikistan lacked jurisdiction when it entered its orders on August 10, 2021 and that Russia had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to DRL § 76-a after the issuance of an initial child custody order regarding the child on November 20, 2019. Neither party has sought to register the 2019 Russian order.

Thus, the dispositive question before this Court is: Did Tajikistan have jurisdiction to enter a visitation order on August 10, 2021? An affirmative answer to that question would require registration of the Tajikistan order in New York Family Court; a negative answer to that question would require this Court to deny such registration.

The Domestic Relations Law § 75-d states, in relevant part: "A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purpose of applying this title and title two of this article .[A] child custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this article must be recognized..." DRL § 75-d[1], [2]. "The UCCJEA is mandatory and provides that a child custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this article must be recognized and enforced, except where the child custody law of a foreign country as written or as applied violates fundamental principles of human rights." S.B. v W.A., 38 Misc 3d 780, 959 NYS2d 802 [Westchester County Sup Ct 2012], affd sub nom. Badawi v Wael Mounir Alesawy, 135 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2016]. "The clear import of the phrase 'in substantial conformity with jurisdictional standards' is that the state or foreign government that issued the child custody order must have met some minimum contacts over the parties in order to register a child custody order from outside New York." Chue v Clark, 46 Misc 3d 973, 999 NYS2d 676 [Monroe County Sup Ct 2014]. Thus, the Court shall treat Russia and Tajikistan as if they were states of the United States for the purpose of applying the UCCJEA.

Under DRL § 76[1][a-b], a court may make an initial child custody determination only if [a] the state is the "home state," defined as "the state in which a child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding" (DRL § 75-a[7]), or was the home state within six months of the commencement of the proceeding or [b] a court of another state does not have home state jurisdiction and the family has a "significant connection" to this state and substantial evidence is available there concerning the child's care and well-being.

Once an initial child custody determination is made by a court of a child's home state, that state has "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" under DRL § 76-a[1] until (a) that same court determines that neither the child nor the parties have a "significant connection" with the state, or (b) that court, or a court of another state, determines that the child and the parties no longer live in the state that made the initial child custody determination. Under DRL § 76-b, a court may not modify an initial child custody determination made by another state unless the court has jurisdiction under DRL § 76[1][a] or [b] and the issuing state either voluntarily relinquishes jurisdiction or the court or the issuing state finds that all parties moved out of the issuing state.

The Court finds that on November 20, 2019, the Russian court made an initial child custody determination within the meaning of DRL § 76. Under the DRL § 76-a, Russia would then retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction until either a) it voluntarily relinquished jurisdiction or b) Russia or another country finds that all parties moved out of Russia. In this case, the August 10, 2021 Dushanbe City Court (in Tajikistan) order and the Mother's testimony establish that all parties had moved from Russia to Tajikistan by early 2021. Therefore, at the time of the first proceeding in Tajikistan, the Tajikistan court would have had jurisdiction to modify within the meaning of the DRL as Russia no longer had exclusive continuing jurisdiction as neither the Child nor her parents lived in Russia any longer. Cf. Stocker v Sheehan, 13 AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2004] (finding that the issuing state continued to retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, despite the child moving out of the state seven years prior, as the father continued to reside in the issuing state).

As the Child had no home "state," Tajikistan would then have had jurisdiction under DRL § 76[1][b] if the Child had a significant connection with Tajikistan and substantial evidence concerning her care and relationships was available there. Mark B. v Tameka D., 183 AD3d 1038 [3d Dept 2020]. The evidence and arguments presented establish that at the very least, at the time the August 10, 2021 order was issued, the Mother, Father, Child, and maternal grandmother all lived in Tajikistan. The Court also infers that the family is originally from Tajikistan, as the August 10, 2021 order states that the Mother "returned to Dushanbe" in 2021. (Emphasis added.) At some point, the Mother also worked in Tajikistan as indicated by a July 2022 Statement of Record by the Secretary of the Commission on the Rights of the Child and District Inspector of the Department of Internal Affairs which demonstrate that Commission members visited the Mother at her place of employment and spoke with her about the failure to comply with court orders. See Statement of Record by the Secretary of the Commission on the Rights of the Child and District Inspector of the Department of Internal Affairs, Shohmansur District, Dushanbe (Jul. 2, 2022). The Father also provided gifts, food, clothing, toys, and child support to the Child while the Child was in Tajikistan. See Order dated August 10, 2021; Order dated November 20, 2021. In addition, the Mother submitted an undated document which this Court infers is from 2022 in which she claims to have attempted to produce the Child for visitation in Tajikistan by the "building of [the Mother and Child's] residence " Application (to the Head of the Execution Service under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan) by A. B.B., undated. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Mother and Child intended to or ever did return to Russia. The Court thus finds that the Child had a significant connection with Tajikistan and substantial evidence concerning her care and relationships was available there within the meaning of DRL § 76[1][b].

Under DRL § 77-b, the Court must find that the Tajikistan court "exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with" the UCCJEA in order to register the order. The Court need not find that that the Tajik court complied perfectly with each and every subsection of the UCCJEA as written. See also S.B., 38 Misc 3d 780, 809 ("There is no requirement that the foreign country enact a UCCJEA equivalent."). What is abundantly clear to this Court is that by August 10, 2021, all parties had lived in Tajikistan for at least several months, and the Tajik court met some "minimum contacts" over the parties. Chue, 46 Misc 3d at 983. Thus, because the August 10, 2021 order was issued at least several months after the family had moved to Tajikistan, no party lived in Russia anymore, and the Tajik court had ostensibly "met some minimum contacts over the parties," this Court finds that the orders issued by Dushanbe City Court of Tajikistan and its cassation court are in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA. Id. at 982-83. See also Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Dom Rel L § 76-b ("[A]ny land beyond America's borders[ ] does not know about "home state" jurisdiction (particularly when the parties consent or acquiesce) and, understandably, does not parse the facts relevant to determining home state jurisdiction."); In re Michael McC. v. Manuela A., 48 AD3d 91, 97 [1st Dept 2007], leave to app. dismissed, 10 NY3d 836 [2008]. Cf. In re Marriage of Sareen, 153 Cal App 4th 371, 377 [Cal Ct App 2007] (finding that India did not exercise jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA as the parties still lived in the United States and the father had filed only nine days after arriving in India).

The Court also finds that the Mother had notice and an opportunity to be heard in the Tajikistan proceedings. The August 10, 2021 Dushanbe City Court order references the Mother's participation in the proceedings, and the Mother herself filed the appeal to that order, which resulted in the Tajikistan Cassation Ruling dated November 20, 2021. The Dushanbe City Court noted in its April 20, 2022 order that the Mother was provided with notice of the date, time, and place of the court hearing and did not offer any legal excuse for her absence. See Decision in the Name of the Republic of Tajikistan, dated April 20, 2022 (Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe) (Isozoda, J.).² During the hearing on August 20, 2026, the Mother claimed that she had moved to Mexico  ³ in October 2022 and arrived in the United States in August 2023. See Tr. 8/20/26 at 12, lns 9-12. Even if that were true, her move took place after the April 20, 2022 order was issued and does not constitute a valid excuse for missing the April 20, 2022 hearing.

Additionally, the Mother does not allege that the child custody laws of Tajikistan violate fundamental principles of human rights nor does this court find any evidence of such. See DRL § 76.

Although not relevant to its ultimate legal conclusion, the Court also notes that, while the Mother is now arguing that Russia retained jurisdiction when Tajikistan entered its orders, the Cassation Ruling states that the Mother "called the agreement made in Russia obsolete" and wished to proceed in the Tajikistan court. Decision in the Name of the Republic of Tajikistan (J. Sayadalizoda Sh.). Additionally, Cassation Court's ruling, in explaining the basis for the Mother's appeal, does not mention any argument made by her that that Russia, and not Tajikistan, had jurisdiction. The Mother has never sought to register the Russian order which directed weekly 2.5-hour visits in the form of a walk near the mother's home, in the presence of the mother.

For the reasons above, this Court finds that the Mother has not substantiated her objection to the Father's application to register the Tajikistan orders with respect to visitation for the Father. Thus, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Tajikistan Orders with respect to visitation for the Father shall be registered and the objection to such is denied.

DATE: September 17, 2026

ENTERED:

Hon. Laura M. Paley

Judge of the Family Court

FOOTNOTES

1.   Certified translations of all foreign documents were provided and filed with the Court.

2.   The January 26, 2023 order was issued only with respect to a typographical error in the April 20, 2022 order. See Court Ruling, dated January 26, 2023 (Shohmansur District Court of Dushanbe) (Isozoda, J.) ("The court ruling [on April 20, 2023] was correctly issued in substance" and "the arithmetical mistakes and errors do not affect the content and substance of the court ruling ").

3.   To substantiate this claim, the attorney for the Mother filed a document that purports to be a receipt for round-trip plane tickets from Istanbul to Mexico. The issue date of the receipt is October 18, 2023. The departure date from Istanbul is November 19, and the arrival back in Istanbul is December 8. The Court did not regard this evidence as particularly relevant as the flights were scheduled for over a year after the 2022 order was issued and the flights are round-trip. If it is relevant at all, it is to diminish the Mother's credibility as the receipt contradicts the Mother's testimony that she had arrived in Mexico in October 2022.

Laura M. Paley, J.