TL;DR: New Jersey’s 2026 Child Custody Law Changes
New Jersey revised its child custody statute in January 2026 to give courts clearer direction in contested cases. The updated law makes child safety a threshold issue, strengthens how children’s wishes are considered, limits court-ordered therapy to evidence-based practices, and adds protections in cases involving domestic violence or abuse. Custody decisions must be made case by case, with judges required to explain their reasoning—especially when safety concerns, therapy, or a child’s expressed preferences are involved.
For confidential legal guidance in your custody or divorce matter: Request A Consultation Today.
In January 2026, New Jersey quietly rewrote the rules governing child custody disputes. In one of his final official acts, Phil Murphy signed S4510/A5761 into law just before Mikie Sherrill was sworn in as Governor. While the legislation describes itself as merely “clarifying procedures in certain contested child custody cases,” the reality is far more significant.
The law substantially amends N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, the statute that governs custody and parenting-time decisions when parents separate or divorce. These changes took effect immediately, and their full impact will likely unfold over years of trial court rulings and appellate decisions. What is clear now is that New Jersey custody law has shifted away from long-standing presumptions and toward a framework that places child safety, individualized decision-making, and children’s voices at the center of custody disputes.
This article explains what changed, why it matters, and what parents should understand if they are facing a custody issue in New Jersey.
The End of “Frequent and Continuing Contact” as a Guiding Principle
For decades, New Jersey custody law opened with a clear public policy directive: to “assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents.” That language is now gone.
In its place, the Legislature adopted a series of new public policy declarations that fundamentally reframe custody analysis. The amended statute now begins by stating that “the protection and welfare, both physically and emotionally, of minor children are held paramount.” While continued contact with both parents may still serve that goal in many cases, there is no longer any presumption — or promise — that such contact is the default outcome.
Shared parenting remains encouraged, but only when it is in the child’s best interests and consistent with the child’s protection and welfare. In other words, parenting time is no longer something courts are expected to maximize by default. It is something they must justify based on the child’s safety and well-being.
Safety Is No Longer One Factor Among Many—It Is the Threshold Issue
Perhaps the most important change is how explicitly the statute elevates child safety.
The Legislature now declares, repeatedly and unmistakably, that:
- A child’s safety is “of paramount importance”
- Safety is an integral element of the child’s best interests
- Judicial decisions regarding custody and parenting time must promote child safety as a threshold issue
This is more than a semantic change. Under the prior statute, safety concerns — such as domestic violence or abuse — were weighed alongside many other factors. Under the revised law, courts are expected to address safety first, before turning to schedules, shared custody, or parenting-time structures.
For parents, this means that allegations and evidence related to safety will play a more central role earlier in the case, rather than being treated as just one consideration among many.
Case-by-Case Custody Decisions Are Now Explicitly Required
The amended statute reinforces that custody and parenting-time decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. There are no automatic outcomes, no default custody arrangements, and no one-size-fits-all solutions.
While the law continues to recognize that both parents’ rights are equal, equal rights do not translate into guaranteed equal parenting time. Courts must tailor custody arrangements to the specific child, the specific family, and the specific facts—particularly where safety or conflict is involved.
Children’s Voices Are Elevated—With New Judicial Obligations
The revised statute places significantly greater emphasis on children’s voices in contested custody cases.
At the policy level, the Legislature states — without qualification — that children’s expressed preferences should be considered. Later provisions of the statute condition that consideration on age, capacity, and maturity, creating some tension that courts will need to resolve. What is unmistakable, however, is the Legislature’s intent: children are no longer to be passive subjects of custody litigation.
The statute now requires that:
- When a child is old enough and mature enough to express a reasoned preference, the court must consider it
- If a court orders a custody arrangement that is contrary to the child’s expressed wishes, the judge must explain on the record both the custody decision and the reasons for disregarding the child’s preference
- In appropriate cases, children may also speak privately with the judge (in camera), outside the presence of their parents. While this does not place the burden of decision-making on children, it ensures their perspectives are formally acknowledged and addressed.
Expanded Factors Courts Must Consider in Custody Cases
The statute retains the familiar list of custody factors but expands it in meaningful ways. Courts must now explicitly consider:
- Any history of child abuse
- The safety of the child’s siblings
- Input or supporting documentation from a state-licensed mental health professional providing private therapy or services to the child, to the extent permitted by licensure
When evaluating parental fitness, courts must also consider evaluations administered by court-appointed professionals, reinforcing a move toward evidence-based decision-making.
Court-Ordered Therapy: The Most Complex and Consequential Changes
The most extensive — and potentially controversial — revisions concern court-ordered therapy, including but not limited to reunification-type therapy.
The Legislature now declares that no therapy may be ordered unless there is generally accepted, scientifically valid proof of its safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value. Courts must find “good cause” before ordering therapy and must evaluate a detailed, non-exhaustive list of factors, including:
- The reasons for, extent of, and duration of any parent-child separation
- The child’s age, capacity, and maturity
- The willingness of parents and the child to engage in therapy
- Alleged conduct by one parent against the other
- The child’s prior therapy history
- Any history of domestic violence or child abuse
Earlier versions of the legislation focused narrowly on reunification therapy. The enacted statute appears broader, applying these requirements to court-ordered therapy generally, while also imposing an additional, specific restriction on reunification therapy: no program intended to reunite a child with a parent the child resists or refuses to see may be ordered without the consent of both parents and a determination that the child is of sufficient age.
The drafting of these provisions introduces uncertainty — particularly where therapy is ordered in cases that do not involve estrangement. Courts will likely need appellate guidance to clarify how these overlapping rules apply.
Firm Limits on Coercive or Harmful Therapeutic Practices
The statute also draws clear lines around what courts may not authorize. Nothing in the law permits:
- Therapy that cuts a child off from a safe, bonded parent
- The use of force, threats of force, or physical obstruction
- Undue coercion, verbal abuse, or isolation from the child’s family, community, or support systems
Whether these provisions operate as enforceable prohibitions or guiding principles will be tested in litigation, but the legislative message is unmistakable: child safety and autonomy cannot be sacrificed in the name of therapeutic intervention.
Stronger Protections in Domestic Violence and Abuse Cases
Several amendments directly address long-standing concerns in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse:
- Courts may not presume that a child’s reluctance to see a parent was caused by the other parent (aka no presumption of parental alienation)
- A parent with a history of abuse may not be granted increased custody simply to improve the parent-child relationship
- When therapy is ordered in these cases, the mental health professional must have appropriate training and experience
Given how frequently domestic violence findings arise in family court matters, these provisions are likely to have significant effects on both initial custody determinations and future modification requests.
Looking Ahead: Study, Uncertainty, and Long-Term Impact
Recognizing the breadth of these changes, the statute directs the Institute for Families at the Rutgers School of Social Work, in consultation with the Administrative Office of the Courts, to study the impact of the amendments and issue a report by January 2029.
That directive reflects an important reality: this law is transformative, but its practical application is still evolving.
What This Means for New Jersey Parents
The January 2026 amendments do not change the core principle of New Jersey custody law—decisions must still serve the child’s best interests. What they do change is how courts are instructed to reach those decisions.
Presumptions have been replaced with protections. Maximizing parenting time has been replaced with prioritizing safety. Children’s voices, once secondary, are now central. Therapy, once ordered with broad discretion, is now subject to strict scientific and procedural limits.
For parents navigating custody disputes, this new framework demands careful legal strategy, thoughtful evidence, and a clear understanding of how safety, child welfare, and individualized outcomes now drive custody decisions in New Jersey.
How Weinberger Law Group Safeguards You in New Jersey Child Custody Matters
If you’re facing a child custody dispute under New Jersey’s newly revised law, it’s normal to feel overwhelmed, uncertain, or even anxious. The decisions made now can shape your child’s safety, stability, and well-being for years to come.
At Weinberger Law Group, we focus exclusively on family law in New Jersey, helping parents navigate custody matters with clarity, compassion, and a strategic plan. Several of our attorneys are Certified Matrimonial Attorneys, a distinction held by only a small percentage of New Jersey family lawyers.
Our approach emphasizes:
-
Protecting your child’s safety and best interests from the outset
-
Presenting clear, well-supported positions to the court on custody and parenting time
-
Addressing complex issues such as domestic violence concerns, therapy disputes, and a child’s expressed wishes
-
Helping you understand not just what the law says, but how it is applied in real New Jersey courtrooms
You don’t have to navigate these changes—or your custody case—alone. If you’re dealing with a child custody dispute, we’re here to help you understand your options and advocate for a resolution that puts your child first.
🛡️ Request Your Consultation Today.
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
New Jersey Child Custody Law FAQs
Did New Jersey change the legal standard for deciding child custody?
No. Courts still decide custody based on the best interests of the child. What changed is how judges are directed to evaluate those interests. The revised law gives courts clearer guidance, particularly when safety concerns, therapy disputes, or a child’s wishes are involved.
What does it mean that child safety is now a “threshold issue”?
It means safety must be addressed first. If there are concerns about domestic violence, abuse, or risk of harm, the court must evaluate those issues before considering parenting schedules, shared custody, or increased parenting time.
Does the new law still favor frequent contact with both parents?
Only when it truly serves the child’s best interests. The revised statute makes clear there is no automatic presumption of equal or frequent parenting time. Custody decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis based on the child’s specific needs and circumstances.
How does the new law change the way a child’s wishes are considered?
If a child is mature enough to express a reasoned preference, the court must consider it. If a judge orders a custody arrangement that goes against what the child expressed, the judge must explain the reasons on the record. In appropriate cases, children may also speak privately with the judge.
Can a child’s therapist now be involved in custody decisions?
Potentially, yes. The revised law allows courts to consider input or documentation from a State-licensed mental health professional treating the child, within the limits of professional licensure. This may help courts better understand the child’s needs, but it can also raise complex issues regarding confidentiality and the therapist’s role.
Can a court still order reunification therapy?
Yes, but only under much stricter rules. Courts may not order therapy unless it is scientifically valid, supported by evidence of effectiveness, and justified by good cause. Certain reunification-type therapies cannot be ordered without both parents’ consent and a finding that the child is of sufficient age.
What protections does the new law provide in domestic violence or abuse cases?
The revised law adds several important safeguards. A child’s reluctance to see a parent cannot automatically be blamed on the other parent. A parent with a history of abuse cannot be awarded increased custody simply to improve the parent-child relationship. When therapy is ordered, the mental health professional must have appropriate training and experience in cases involving abuse.
Do these changes apply to existing custody orders?
The revised statute applies to new and ongoing cases where custody issues are before the court. Existing custody orders do not automatically change, but the updated law may be relevant if a modification is requested.
Will the new law make custody cases faster or easier?
Not necessarily. While the law provides clearer guidance, it also requires courts to make more detailed findings and explanations. Some issues, such as whether therapy is benefiting a child, may still be contested. The goal is more thoughtful, child-centered decision-making.
How can a parent protect their rights under the new custody law?
Because the revised statute places greater emphasis on safety, evidence, and clear reasoning, it is important to present well-supported arguments and understand how courts are applying the new standards. Working with an experienced New Jersey family law attorney can help ensure the law is applied fairly in your case.