New Jersey’s New Custody Statute – What’s Different and How It Matters

Moments before leaving office on January 20, 2026, Governor Philip Murphy signed into law amendments to New Jersey’s child custody statute, making significant and controversial changes to how judges decide child custody and parenting time issues.

The official impetus for the revised statute was “Kayden’s Law” a federal law enacted to ensure child safety in response to a tragic Pennsylvania custody dispute. That dispute involved a parent with a history of domestic violence and mental instability who was awarded unsupervised parenting time with a seven-year-old and, during an unsupervised visit killed the child and took his own life.

Despite the emphasis on safety, the amendments to New Jersey’s custody statute extend far beyond that purpose. The law contains inconsistencies, contradicts other laws, and can be used to limit judges’ ability to award needed relief in child custody and parenting time disputes.

The preamble to the law reflects a striking reversal of previously stated public policy, which stated that it is in children’s best interests to have frequent and continuing contact with both parents, and for parents to share child-rearing responsibilities. That language has been deleted from the statute. The policy in the revised law provides only that the protection and welfare of children can include continued contact with both parents and that parents should be encouraged to share the rights and responsibilities of child-rearing. It no longer assures that this is in a child’s best interests and represents a significant public policy shift that may have far-reaching impact on child custody decisions.

While parents remain free to agree on any custody and parenting plan they believe works for their family, judges operate under different constraints. Judges have had broad discretion to decide child custody disputes, establish custody and parenting plans, and fashion remedies to assist families in conflict, such as requiring family members to engage with professionals to address mental health issues, substance abuse issues and dysfunctional or damaged family relationships. That discretion is limited by the revisions to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, restricting what judges can order, and requiring them to give near-paramount weight to a child’s wishes and preferences.

By elevating the child’s expressed preference to a paramount consideration, a child may be asked to choose between parents, placing the child in an untenable situation in which one or both parents may exert enormous stress on a child to make that choice. Judges may interview children in private without advising parents what the child said. That means a custody decision may rest on what the child said in an interview without the parents having the right to know the basis of the decision.

One inconsistency in the new law involves how judges assess the child’s capacity to state a preference. When a dispute involves a child who resists/refuses contact with a parent, the judge must consider “the child’s age, capacity, and maturity level, including whether the child has special needs and whether those special needs affect the child’s capacity and maturity level.” The law provides a different standard, however, in custody cases that do not involve resistance or refusal — the judge must consider only whether the child is “of sufficient age and capacity so as to form an intelligent decision.” These are not identical standards, do not require the same analysis, and it is unclear whether this inconsistency was intentional or an oversight.

The amendments imply a bias against mental health therapies and services. Although this bias is most evident in the section of the statute that addresses therapies designed to repair relationships for children who resist/refuse contact with a parent, the restrictions on “therapy” are not limited to these cases or these specific therapies. Indeed, “therapy” could include not just mental health therapies, but also physical therapy, occupational therapy, addiction therapies, therapy to address domestic violence and other services.

Perhaps the most startling (and disturbing) feature of the new statute is that it empowers a parent to veto any therapy that is intended to repair a ruptured relationship between a child and the other parent. Even when experts agree therapy is needed, the judge is prohibited from ordering interventions to address the parent-child conflict if the other parent does not consent, even when it is apparent that the parent who will not consent caused the rupture.

There are positive aspects to the amendments. The law now recognizes that the best interests of the child are not the same for all families, and that custody decisions are not one-size-fits-all and must be made on a case-by-case basis. This new public policy challenges any notion in favor of a presumption of equal parenting time or any other allocation of parenting time.

There is more emphasis on child safety; however, considerations of safety have always been paramount in custody determinations, even if not expressly stated in the legislation.

Kayden’s law had an important narrow focus: to ensure the safety of children.  New Jersey’s revised custody statute exceeds that focus without providing any viable rationale for the changes. Many of the changes are an example of a misguided attempt to use the issue of safety to mask the vendetta of disgruntled litigious parents seeking to restrict the ability of judges, lawyers and mental health professionals to address family dysfunction and serve children’s best interests.

Lawrence Law Can Help

As New Jersey courts begin interpreting and applying these significant statutory changes, parents facing custody disputes should understand how the new law may affect their rights, their children, and the outcome of their case. Because many of these amendments raise complex legal and practical questions that have yet to be resolved by the courts, knowledgeable legal guidance is more important than ever.

At Lawrence Law, we are dedicated exclusively to the practice of divorce and family law and remain committed to helping clients navigate changes in New Jersey family law with practical guidance and strategic advocacy tailored to their family’s unique circumstances. Whether you are negotiating a parenting plan, involved in a custody dispute, or seeking to modify an existing custody arrangement, our team is here to help you understand your options and protect what matters most.

If you have questions about how New Jersey’s new custody law may affect your family, contact Lawrence Law at 908-645-1000 to schedule a consultation. To stay informed about important developments in New Jersey family law, legal updates, and news from our firm, subscribe to the Lawrence Ledger, our quarterly newsletter, and follow Lawrence Law for the latest insights and resources.