IN RE: a Custody Proceeding Under Article 6 of the Family Court Act Jeremy XX. (2026)

NOTICE: YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY, AFTER A COURT HEARING, RESULT IN YOUR COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR A TERM NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

NOTICE: PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, THIRTY-FIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR THIRTY DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.

Petitioner Jeremy XX. (hereinafter "the father") and Respondent Jenny YY. (hereinafter "the mother") are the parents of the subject child (date of birth: XX/XX/21) (hereinafter "the child"). This is a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act Article 6. This action commenced with the father's filing of a petition for custody/visitation on January 2, 2026.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted before this Court on September 14, 2026. The father was represented by Attorney Todd Livingston, Esq. The mother was represented by Attorney Stephen Davey, Esq. The child was represented by Attorney Olivia Molineux, Esq., of Citizens Concerned for Children, Inc. The Court heard testimony from both parties and received AFC Exhibit 1 into evidence.

The Court searched the statewide registry of orders of protection, the Sex Offender Registry, and the Family Court's child protective records, and notified the parties and the attorneys of the results of these searches.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Court found the mother to be completely credible. The Court did not find the father to be credible when questioned about past domestic violence against the mother and past indicated CPS reports against him for sexual abuse of a child. The father is currently serving a state prison sentence of 20 years to life for a conviction for murder in the second degree. He has been incarcerated for close to four years and has never met the subject child. He only knows her name and date of birth and is aware she may have a health issue. He does not have any pictures of the child. He does not have the mother's address or telephone number. He has never made contact with the child. Prior to the petition at hand, the father has never filed a petition seeking custody of or visitation with the subject child. The father has four other children with whom he has limited contact.

The 422 Report prepared by the Tompkins County Department of Social Services and filed with the Court on January 16, 2026, was received into evidence as AFC Exhibit 1. Pursuant to the report, the father was indicated for inadequate guardianship of four of his children and for sexual abuse of an 11-year-old child who viewed him as a father. The father was aware that another person had previously sexually abused that child; he made the child describe the abuse, became aroused, and then asked her to perform oral sex on him. He agreed to a safety plan where he would not stay in the home with that child, and then he violated the safety plan. He attempted to coerce that child into withdrawing her disclosure. On February 27, 2013, he was adjudicated to have abused and neglected that child in Tompkins County Family Court.

The mother testified credibly that the father was incarcerated for a period of time in 2020. Judge Betty Poole issued an order of protection against the father in favor of the mother, however the order of protection was not filed electronically. As a result, the police and jail were not immediately aware of the order. The father contacted the mother several times from the jail in violation of the order of protection. He also directed third parties to contact the mother in violation of the order of protection.

Upon his release from jail, the father was "always nearby." He would follow the mother, stalk her, repeatedly contact her, and show up to (and enter) her home in violation of the order of protection. The mother felt scared and stuck, waiting for the chance to get away from him or seek assistance in having him removed.

In early 2021, the mother became pregnant with the subject child. During the pregnancy, the father became increasingly delusional. While the mother was pregnant with the child, the father chased the mother around with a giant knife, stabbing furniture and claiming there was a man beneath the couch with whom she was having sex. He refused to get sober. The mother ended her relationship with the father; she wanted to be safe - and wanted her child to be safe - from the father.

For the child's first year of life, the father was at liberty. He did not make any attempt to visit the child, nor did he ask the mother about the child. On October 30, 2022, he was charged with murder in the second degree and has remained incarcerated since then.

The father seeks permission to call, write letters to, and send gifts to the subject child. He testified that he has enrolled the child in the "Angel Tree" program at his prison which provides Christmas gifts and other services to children of incarcerated parents.

The mother is not opposed to the child receiving appropriate letters written by the father, however she wishes for her address to remain confidential from the father because she is fearful of him. She became genuinely emotional when testifying on this topic at trial. The Court finds her fear to be reasonable and rational given her credible testimony regarding the knife-wielding incident, as well as the precursive stalking and harassment perpetrated on her by the father. The mother is opposed to other forms of contact due to the child's young age, the detrimental impact it could have on the child's emotional well-being, and the lack of any preexisting relationship between the child and father. The Court found the mother to be thoughtful, reasonable, and appropriately protective of the child.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

" 'Visitation with a noncustodial parent, even one who is incarcerated, is presumed to be in the best interests of the [child]. That presumption, however, may be rebutted by demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that visitation with the incarcerated parent would, under all of the circumstances, be harmful to the [child]'s welfare or contrary to their best interests' [internal citations omitted]. 'In assessing what would be in the best interests of the child, the factors to be considered include the age of the child, the lack or existence of a meaningful relationship between the parent and the child, the distance and travel time entailed, and the length of the parent's prison sentence' [internal citations omitted]. 'The propriety of visitation is a matter committed to the sound discretion of Family Court and this Court will not disturb its determination if it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record' [internal citations omitted]." Matter of Joenathan E. v. Jennifer F., 242 AD3d 1339, 1340-1341 (3rd Dept. 2025).

In Matter of Joenathan E. v. Jennifer F., Id. at 1341, the father was seeking visitation with his 12-year-old and 9-year-old children. He was serving an aggregate prison sentence of 40 years for the sexual abuse of an 11-year-old child. The father had not seen the subject children for many years and there was no evidence that he had any established relationship with them. The trial court was troubled by the father's conduct at trial, specifically his denial that he had engaged in the conduct underlying his criminal convictions and his attempt to call the subject children as witnesses. There, the Third Department affirmed the family court's holding that: (1) in-person visitation would be "affirmatively harmful to the welfare" of the subject children; (2) telephone contact would not be in their best interests; and (3) the father was permitted to write the children letters every other month and to send birthday and Christmas cards  ¹ .

Here, as in Matter of Joenathan E. v. Jennifer F., this Court finds that it is in the subject child's best interests to permit the father some limited written communication but no other forms of contact with the child. Although the father is not seeking in-person visitation, this Court finds that such visitation, were it to be ordered, would be "affirmatively harmful to the welfare" of the subject child. Further, the Court finds that telephone contact with the young subject child would be inappropriate and against her best interests. She is only four years old. The father has never met the child and only knows her name and date of birth. For the subject child's first year of life, the father, though free to do so, did not make any attempt to visit with the child or ask the mother about the child. The father has limited contact with his four other children. He has past indicated CPS reports against him, including for the sexual abuse of an 11-year-old child, the disturbing details of which are set forth above. He was adjudicated to have abused and neglected that same child in Tompkins County Family Court in 2013. The father is currently serving a sentence of 20 years to life for a conviction for murder in the second degree. Although the father did not conduct himself inappropriately at trial, the Court finds he was not truthful when questioned about past domestic violence against the mother and past indicated CPS reports against him.

However, at this time, the Court does find that it is in the subject child's best interests to permit the father some limited written communication while at the same time preserving the confidentiality of the mother's address and telephone number. The mother will be permitted to review the communications and, if she deems them appropriate for the child, she shall pass them along to the child. The onus, however, will be on the father to obtain a post office box or arrange for some other delivery method that preserves the confidentiality of the mother's contact information. As such it is hereby:

ORDERED that the mother has continued sole legal custody and sole placement of the subject child; and it is further

ORDERED that the father is permitted to obtain a post office box or arrange for some other delivery method that preserves the confidentiality of the mother's address and telephone number; and it is further

ORDERED that if the father does so, the father may (1) write the child a letter every other month and (2) send the child a card and/or gift for her birthday and Christmas each year, said letters, cards, and gifts to be addressed to the post office box or delivered via alternate method as described above; and it is further

ORDERED that the mother shall review all communications/gifts and, if she deems them appropriate for the child, she shall provide the communications/gifts to the child.

Enter: September 18, 2026

Ithaca, New York

Hon. Scott A. Miller

Family Court Judge

FOOTNOTES

1.   The family court also directed the mother to send the father one photograph of each child annually as well as the final report card for each child annually.

Scott A. Miller, J.