New York Divorce Lawyer Blog
Custody agreements involving supervised parenting time and reunification therapy can create a carefully structured path toward rebuilding a parent’s relationship with a child. But what happens when a parent stops participating in that process and later asks the court to discard the agreement entirely? A recent New York ruling addresses that question, examining whether a reunification therapist was improperly given control over parenting time and whether a parent’s dissatisfaction with the progress of reunification justified sole custody and unsupervised access. The decision demonstrates that New York courts will closely examine both the terms of a negotiated custody agreement and the parties’ compliance with it before considering a significant change in custody. If you are involved in a dispute over custody, supervised parenting time, or reunification therapy, speaking with an experienced New York divorce attorney can help you understand your rights and the legal options available to you.
History of the Custody Dispute
It is reported that the parties married in 2014, had two children, and became involved in highly contentious divorce litigation after the mother commenced a divorce action in 2023. On the date scheduled for a custody and parenting-time trial, the parties instead entered into a written agreement in December 2024, represented by counsel, with the children represented by their own attorney. The agreement gave the mother sole legal custody and final decision-making authority after good-faith consultation with the father. At that time, the father did not have unsupervised parenting time and had not consistently exercised the supervised parenting time previously available to him.
It is reported that the parties voluntarily selected a reunification therapist and agreed to a therapeutic process designed to improve the father’s relationship with the children. The agreement contemplated at least three months of supervised parenting time, after which the therapist could recommend expanding or limiting the father’s access. Critically, however, either parent retained the right to return to court and challenge the therapist’s recommendations based on the children’s best interests.
Reportedly, after several months of supervised parenting time, the therapist recommended pausing reunification efforts until the father completed additional therapeutic steps. The father did not challenge that recommendation through the procedure established in the agreement and stopped participating in the reunification process. Nearly a year later, he sought to rescind the custody agreement, obtain sole legal and physical custody, and secure unsupervised or immediate supervised parenting time. The attorney for the children opposed those requests and advised the court that the children, then ages eleven and eight, did not want contact with the father at that time.
Validity of Custody Agreements
The court rejected the father’s argument that the agreement unlawfully delegated judicial authority to the reunification therapist. New York law does not permit a court to surrender its ultimate authority to determine custody or parenting time to a therapist or other third party. Here, however, the agreement did not make the therapist’s recommendations immune from judicial review. Instead, it expressly allowed either parent to return to court, present evidence, and argue that a recommendation was inconsistent with the children’s best interests. The court therefore distinguished between an impermissible delegation of judicial power and an agreement allowing a professional to make recommendations as part of a therapeutic reunification process.
The court also rejected the request to set aside the parties’ negotiated agreement. New York courts favor settlement agreements, and such agreements are not lightly discarded. Although an agreement may potentially be set aside based on grounds such as fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability, the father failed to establish facts warranting that relief. The court stressed that he had been represented by counsel and allocuted when he entered into the agreement. More importantly, the court concluded that his failure to participate in the reunification process could not itself supply the justification for rescinding the agreement. Because the submissions did not raise sufficient factual issues, the court determined that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary.
The court separately considered whether the father had established grounds to modify custody. Under New York law, a party seeking to change an existing custody arrangement must first demonstrate a genuine and substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant reconsideration of the children’s best interests. The burden rests with the parent seeking modification. The court emphasized that a party generally cannot rely on his or her own failure to comply with an existing custody order or agreement as the changed circumstance supporting modification. Because the father had not demonstrated the required substantial change, the court denied his request for sole legal custody without a hearing.
Talk to a Skilled New York Custody Attorney
Custody agreements involving reunification therapy, supervised access, and strained parent-child relationships can present difficult legal and practical questions. If you are seeking to change a custody arrangement, restore parenting time, or respond to a request to alter an existing agreement, you should talk to an attorney. Attorney Ksenia Rudyuk of RLF Family Law is a skilled New York child custody attorney who can evaluate the circumstances and develop a strategy designed to protect your parental rights and your children’s best interests. Contact RLF Family Law at (212) 706-2001 or complete our online form to schedule a consultation.