How New Jersey’s 2026 Custody Law Overhaul Affects Monmouth County Parents

For years, New Jersey custody cases began from a familiar premise: children generally do best when they have frequent and continuing contact with both parents. That premise has not disappeared, but it no longer sits at the top of the statute. On January 20, 2026, Governor Phil Murphy signed S4510/A5761 into law, rewriting N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, the statute family judges rely on when they decide custody and parenting time. The law took effect immediately and now shapes every contested custody decision in the state, including cases heard in Monmouth, Ocean, and Middlesex counties.

At Sanvenero & Cittadino, LLC, we represent parents in Shrewsbury, Red Bank, Middletown, Rumson, and throughout the Jersey Shore who are facing custody disputes at every stage, from a first filing to a long post-judgment battle. The 2026 amendments change the order in which judges look at the evidence, how children are heard, and when a court can send a family to therapy. Parents who understand those changes are in a far better position to protect their children and present their case effectively.

Quick Answer: What Did the 2026 Amendments Change?

New Jersey’s amended custody statute makes child safety a threshold issue that judges must address before anything else, replaces the old “frequent and continuing contact” policy with a declaration that the physical and emotional protection and welfare of children is paramount, gives children’s expressed preferences more procedural weight, sharply limits court-ordered therapy and reunification programs, and requires judges to explain their reasoning on the record in contested cases. The law applies to custody decisions made on or after January 20, 2026, but it does not automatically rewrite existing custody orders.

The Law at a Glance

• Bill: S4510/A5761, enacted as P.L. 2025, c. 316
• Signed: January 20, 2026
• Effective: Immediately upon signing
• Statute amended: N.J.S.A. 9:2-4
• Core themes: child safety, the child’s voice, judicial transparency, and limits on therapy that lacks scientific support

Why New Jersey Rewrote Its Custody Statute

The amendments are tied to a national movement known as Kayden’s Law. The name honors Kayden Mancuso, a seven-year-old Pennsylvania girl who was killed by her father in 2018 during a court-ordered unsupervised visit, despite her mother’s warnings about his behavior. Congress later included Kayden’s Law in the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022, encouraging states to strengthen protections for children in custody cases involving abuse or domestic violence.

New Jersey’s updated statute expressly references that federal law. The Legislature declared that custody and parenting time decisions should promote the safety of children as a threshold issue, that children’s voices should be considered in contested cases, and that any court-ordered therapy must be scientifically valid with generally accepted proof of its effectiveness and therapeutic value.

The amendments were not without controversy. Several bar and professional organizations raised concerns during the legislative process about how the changes would work in practice. Those debates will likely continue as judges begin applying the new language, which is one reason careful legal guidance matters right now.

A New Statement of Policy at the Top of the Statute

The opening paragraph of N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 sets the tone for everything that follows. The prior version announced a policy of assuring children frequent and continuing contact with both parents after separation or divorce. The amended version now states that the protection and welfare of minor children, both physically and emotionally, are held paramount.

Continuing contact with both parents still appears in the statute, but in a different role. It is described as something that can be part of protecting a child’s welfare, rather than as the policy itself. Similarly, the law still encourages parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising their children, but now adds an important qualifier: when doing so is in the best interest of the child.

Equally important is what did not change. The statute still says the rights of both parents are equal in any custody proceeding. Judges can still award joint legal custody, joint physical custody, sole custody with parenting time, or any other arrangement that serves the child’s best interests. A parent is not considered unfit unless that parent’s conduct has a substantial adverse effect on the child.

Safety Is Now the Starting Point

Before the amendments, safety concerns were weighed alongside factors such as school stability, parental cooperation, and the distance between the parents’ homes. Judges were always expected to take abuse and domestic violence seriously, but those concerns were part of a broader balancing test.

Under the amended law, safety is a gateway question. When there is a history of domestic violence, child abuse, or other credible risk, the court must confront that risk directly before turning to the rest of the best interests analysis. The goal is to prevent situations where a pursuit of balanced parenting time overshadows real danger to a child.

In practice, this affects how both sides prepare. A parent raising safety concerns should expect the court to examine those concerns closely and should be ready to support them with credible evidence. A parent facing allegations should understand that the court cannot simply set them aside, and that a thoughtful, evidence-based response is essential. Many of these cases overlap with restraining order matters, and the outcome of a domestic violence proceeding can carry significant weight in a later custody dispute.

How the Best Interests Factors Were Updated

New Jersey judges still consider a list of factors when awarding custody, and the list is not exhaustive. Several factors were revised or added in 2026:

• Domestic violence and child abuse: The court now considers the history of both domestic violence and child abuse, rather than domestic violence alone.
• Safety of siblings: The safety analysis now expressly includes the child’s siblings, along with the safety of the child and of either parent from physical abuse by the other.
• Refusal to allow parenting time: A parent’s history of refusing parenting time remains relevant, but the statute now clarifies that this applies to refusals not based on substantiated abuse.
• Input from the child’s therapist: The court may consider input and supporting documentation from a State licensed mental health professional providing private therapy or other services to the child, to the extent the professional’s licensure allows.
• Parental fitness: Fitness is now evaluated taking into account assessments administered by court-appointed professionals.

Long-standing factors remain in place, including the parents’ ability to communicate and cooperate, the stability of each home, the quality and continuity of the child’s education, the extent and quality of time each parent has spent with the child, and the parents’ work schedules.

Giving Children a Real Voice

A child’s preference has always been one of the factors New Jersey courts consider when the child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason and form an intelligent decision. New Jersey court rules have also long allowed judges to interview children. What the 2026 amendments add is accountability.

Under the revised statute, if a judge orders a custody arrangement that conflicts with a child’s expressed preferences, the judge must specifically place on the record the factors that justify the arrangement and the reasons for setting aside the child’s wishes. A child’s preference is still not the final word, but it can no longer be quietly overlooked.

The amendments also create a private path for children to be heard when therapy is being considered. A child who is found to be of sufficient age and who wants to speak with the judge must be given an audience off the record in chambers, and the record of that conversation is sealed. The child may also submit letters from a treating licensed mental health professional supporting the child’s capacity and maturity to explain their reasons.

Parents should approach this carefully. Judges are experienced at recognizing when a child has been coached, pressured, or drawn into a loyalty conflict, and that kind of conduct can seriously damage a parent’s credibility. When a child has genuine concerns, the right approach is to let the process work as designed, with guidance from counsel about how and when the child’s perspective should be presented.

When a Child Resists Contact, the Court Cannot Assume Who Is at Fault

Few custody problems are as painful as a child who refuses to spend time with one parent. The parent being refused may believe the other parent is turning the child against them. The other parent may believe the child is responding to something real. The child is often caught in between.

The amended statute addresses this directly. A court may not presume that a child’s reluctance to interact with one parent was caused by the other parent. Instead, the court must look at the actual reasons for the resistance, its extent and duration, and the perspectives of each parent and of the child when the child is mature enough to explain.

The law also includes a protective rule for cases involving abuse. When there is evidence of a history of domestic violence or child abuse, the offending parent cannot be granted increased custody for the purpose of improving the relationship or overcoming the child’s reluctance. Courts can no longer use expanded custody time as a tool to repair a relationship damaged by abuse.

Court-Ordered Therapy Faces a Much Higher Bar

Some of the most significant changes involve therapy. Under the amended statute, a court may not order any therapy unless there is generally accepted and scientifically valid proof of its safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value, and the court must find good cause that therapy is appropriate.

Programs designed to reunite a child with an estranged parent whom the child resists or refuses face an additional hurdle. A court cannot order that type of program without the consent of both parties and a determination that the child is of sufficient age.

When deciding whether good cause exists for therapy, the court must consider factors including:

• The reasons, extent, and duration of the separation from the perspective of each parent and, when appropriate, the child
• The child’s age, capacity, and maturity, including any special needs
• The willingness of each parent and the child to participate in scientifically valid therapy
• Conduct by either parent that weighs for or against therapy
• A summary of the child’s therapy history and the results of prior interventions, prepared in compliance with federal HIPAA privacy protections
• Any history of domestic violence or child abuse, including sexual, emotional, or mental abuse, or evidence that either parent placed the child’s health, safety, or welfare at substantial risk
• Any other relevant factor

Who Can Provide Court-Ordered Therapy

If therapy is ordered, the court may appoint a State licensed mental health professional to lead the process. When there is evidence of a history of domestic violence or child abuse, that professional must have substantial training and experience working with people who have experienced that type of violence or abuse. The professional reports to the court periodically, and children of sufficient age can ask to report their own experience in therapy. Based on that feedback, the court may adjust, suspend, or end the therapy, with its reasons stated on the record.

Methods the Law Will Not Allow

The statute specifically prohibits therapy that cuts a child off from a safe, non-abusive parent with whom the child is bonded, the use of force, threats, or physical obstruction that places a child’s safety at risk, and the use of undue coercion, verbal abuse, or isolation from the child’s family, community, or other sources of support.

Parents remain free to agree to therapy voluntarily without a court order. In many families, a well-chosen therapist engaged by agreement can still play a constructive role.

Judges Must Show Their Work

In any custody arrangement that both parents did not agree to, the court must specifically place on the record the factors that justify the decision. Combined with the requirement to explain any departure from a child’s expressed preferences, this creates a clearer record of how the judge weighed the evidence.

That transparency helps parents understand the outcome and matters greatly if either side later seeks reconsideration, an appeal, or a modification. It also raises the stakes on preparation. Vague complaints about the other parent carry little weight when a judge must tie the decision to specific factors and specific evidence.

What the New Law Does Not Do

Because the amendments received significant attention, several misconceptions have taken hold. It helps to be clear about the limits of the changes:

• The law does not eliminate joint custody or shared parenting time. Equal or near-equal schedules remain available when they serve the child.
• The law does not let a child choose where to live. A child’s preference is considered and must be addressed on the record, but the court still decides based on the child’s best interests.
• The law does not mean every accusation results in restricted parenting time. Safety concerns still must be supported by credible evidence.
• The law does not automatically change a final custody order entered before January 20, 2026.
• The law does not ban all therapy. It requires that court-ordered therapy be scientifically supported, justified by good cause, and conducted safely.

Existing Orders and Requests to Modify Custody

If you already have a custody order or a parenting time schedule, it remains enforceable. The 2026 amendments do not void prior orders, and neither parent should stop following a schedule because the law changed.

What the amendments do change is the framework a judge will use if either parent asks the court to revisit custody. A parent seeking a change generally must show a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare. Once that showing is made, the updated statute governs how the court evaluates safety, the child’s preferences, and any request for therapy. If you are considering modifying a custody order or opposing a modification filed by the other parent, it is worth reviewing how the new standards apply to your specific facts before filing anything.

The same is true for parents dealing with a proposed move. Requests involving relocating with a child are decided under the best interests standard, so the revised factors and the heightened focus on safety can play a role in those disputes as well.

Preparing a Custody Case Under the Amended Statute

Parents in Monmouth County custody matters, which are heard in the Family Part of the Superior Court in Freehold, can take practical steps to put their best case forward under the new rules.

Organize Evidence Around the Factors

Because judges must tie their decisions to specific statutory factors, it helps to organize your evidence the same way. School records, pediatric records, calendars showing who handled daily routines, communications about the children, and documentation from teachers or coaches can each speak to particular factors.

Be Accurate About Safety Concerns

Police reports, medical records, photographs, prior court orders, and messages can support legitimate safety concerns. Overstating events or making claims that cannot be supported does the opposite and can undermine an otherwise strong case.

Think Carefully About Your Child’s Therapist

Input from a child’s treating mental health professional is now a listed factor, but a treating therapist’s role is different from that of a custody evaluator or court-appointed professional. Parents should never pressure a child’s therapist to take sides. Counsel can help determine whether and how that professional’s input should come before the court.

Respond to Resistance With Patience

If your child is resisting time with you, avoid forcing confrontations or blaming the other parent in front of the child. The court will want to understand the full history of the relationship, and a calm, child-focused approach will serve you better than escalation.

Present a Realistic Parenting Plan

When parents cannot agree, the court may require each to submit a custody plan. A plan that reflects your child’s school schedule, activities, developmental needs, and safety is far more persuasive than one designed to maximize your own time.

What Comes Next: A Statewide Review of the Law

The Legislature built in a mechanism to measure the impact of these changes. Within three years of the law’s effective date, the Institute for Families at the Rutgers School of Social Work, in consultation with the Administrative Office of the Courts, must report to the Governor and Legislature on how the amendments are affecting family reunification and custody case outcomes. The law appropriated $500,000 each to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Rutgers institute to support that work. Parents and practitioners should expect continued discussion, and possibly further refinement, as courts gain experience with the new standards.

Talk With a Monmouth County Custody Lawyer About the 2026 Changes

The amended statute gives judges new tools and new obligations, and it gives parents new opportunities to be heard. It also creates new ways for a case to go wrong when evidence is poorly organized, safety concerns are mishandled, or a child is placed in the middle of the conflict.

Sanvenero & Cittadino, LLC brings focused family law experience to custody disputes throughout Monmouth, Ocean, and Middlesex counties. Managing partner Richard Sanvenero is a New Jersey Supreme Court Certified Matrimonial Attorney, a distinction held by a small percentage of family lawyers in the state. Our child custody attorneys work closely with parents on initial custody determinations, contested hearings, modification requests, and cases involving domestic violence or a resistant child, always with the child’s long-term stability at the center of the strategy.

If you have questions about how New Jersey’s 2026 custody amendments affect your family, contact our Shrewsbury office or call 732-743-9665 to schedule a consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions About New Jersey’s 2026 Custody Amendments

When did the new New Jersey custody law take effect?

Governor Phil Murphy signed S4510/A5761 on January 20, 2026, and the amendments to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 took effect immediately. Custody decisions made on or after that date are governed by the updated statute.

Is the New Jersey law the same as Kayden’s Law?

New Jersey’s amendments are a state-level response to Kayden’s Law, the federal provision included in the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022. The statute expressly states that court-ordered therapy should be consistent with Kayden’s Law, and it reflects the same focus on child safety in custody cases involving abuse or domestic violence.

Does New Jersey still favor both parents being involved after a divorce?

Yes, when that involvement serves the child. The statute still treats both parents’ rights as equal and still encourages shared parenting responsibilities when they are in the child’s best interest. The difference is that continuing contact is now framed as part of protecting the child’s welfare rather than as the controlling policy.

Can my child talk to the judge privately?

Judges have long had discretion to interview children in custody matters. When a court is deciding whether to order therapy, the amended statute also provides that a child of sufficient age who wants to speak to the court must be granted a private audience in chambers, off the record, with the record of the conversation sealed.

Can a judge order reunification therapy if I object?

A court cannot order a treatment program intended to reunite a child with a parent the child resists or refuses without the consent of both parties and a determination that the child is of sufficient age. Any court-ordered therapy must also be supported by generally accepted, scientifically valid proof of safety and effectiveness, along with a showing of good cause.

Should I file to change my custody order because of the new law?

Not necessarily. The amendments alone do not change an existing order or automatically justify a modification. A parent seeking a change still generally needs to show a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child. A family law attorney can review your order and your circumstances to determine whether a modification request makes sense.