On January 20, 2026, former Governor Phil Murphy signed New Jersey Senate Bill S4510/A5761 into law, which reformed core aspects of N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 governing child custody. Changes include how courts assess safety risks, evaluate children’s preferences, determine whether to order therapeutic interventions, and when judges must provide specific findings on the record to justify custody decisions. This change in the statute to a focus on child safety was a result of Kayden’s Law. The purpose is to increase priority to child safety, which, under Kayden’s Law, was referencing domestic violence and child abuse cases.
Key Takeaways
The amendments to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 introduce several notable changes that practitioners handling child custody matters should keep in mind:
- Child safety is now the threshold inquiry. Courts must address safety concerns before conducting the broader best-interests analysis, and they may not increase parenting time or order therapy to force a parent-child relationship where abuse or safety risks are present.
- The statutory emphasis on “frequent and continuing contact” with both parents has been removed. While ongoing contact with both parents may still be appropriate in many cases, the statute no longer directs courts to maximize parenting time as a guiding principle.
- Children’s preferences must be considered and addressed. Courts must consider a child’s expressed preferences regarding custody and parenting time and must place specific reasons on the record when a decision differs from those preferences.
- Permits children to submit letters to the Court through their treating therapist (State licensed mental health professional). This will invite problems as it could possibly put at risk the relationship between child and therapist given the nature of their role as a treating therapist.
- This may also increase the need for a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) or an attorney for the child to speak on their behalf.
- Judges must make detailed findings on the record in contested custody matters. The amendments require greater judicial transparency regarding how custody determinations are reached.
- Court-ordered therapy is now subject to stricter requirements. This applies to basic therapy for the child. Under the new Subsection g, there are 7 factors that a Court must consider as to whether good cause exists to order therapy. This requires a plenary hearing.
- Courts must find good cause, evaluate specific statutory factors, and rely on generally accepted, scientifically valid evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of the therapy before ordering it. Practitioners will need Appellate Division guidance as to what forms of therapy will be generally accepted by the Court.
- Reunification therapy is essentially eliminated. Programs intended to reunite a resistant child with a parent face additional limitations. Courts may not order such programs without the consent of both parents and a determination that the child is of sufficient age and maturity.
- Mental health professionals involved in custody-related therapy must be appropriately licensed. In matters involving abuse or domestic violence, professionals must also possess specialized training and experience.
- The amendments apply immediately to pending and future cases. Existing custody orders are not automatically modified, but the revised statutory framework will govern new applications and ongoing litigation.
N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 Statutory Changes
1. Legislative Purpose
This bill is intended to clarify procedures in contested child custody matters, particularly with respect to when and how courts may order therapeutic interventions involving a child. The legislation requires courts to evaluate specific factors before directing a child or family to participate in therapy. These factors include the child’s age, maturity, and capacity; the willingness of the child and parents to engage in therapy; each parent’s conduct relevant to the need for therapy; the child’s prior therapeutic history; and any history of domestic violence, child abuse, or conduct that may have placed the child’s health, safety, or welfare at substantial risk. The bill also requires that any court-ordered therapy be supported by generally accepted, scientifically valid evidence demonstrating its safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value. Additionally, the bill permits a child of sufficient age and maturity to speak privately with the judge and to submit supporting letters from a treating mental health professional regarding the child’s ability to express a preference, with the record of any such conversation sealed.
If the court determines therapy is appropriate, it may appoint a state-licensed mental health professional to conduct the therapeutic process and coordinate, as necessary, with the parties’ or child’s existing therapists. The appointed therapist must provide periodic progress reports to the court, including the parties’ and the child’s willingness to participate, after which the court may modify, suspend, or terminate the therapy as appropriate, with reasons stated on the record. The bill also expressly prohibits courts from ordering therapy that severs a child’s relationship with a bonded parent or that relies on force, coercion, or isolation. Finally, the legislation amends the legislative findings within the child custody statute to clarify the Legislature’s intent and appropriates $500,000 each to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Institute for Families at Rutgers University’s School of Social Work to study and report on the effectiveness of these provisions.
2. Removal of the “Frequent and Continuing Contact” Presumption
The prior statutory language that included a policy of ensuring children “frequent and continuing contact” with both parents has been removed. The statute now begins with a declaration that the physical and emotional protection and welfare of children is paramount. The statute goes on to provide that protecting a child’s welfare may include, but is not limited to, continuing contact with both parents. Therefore, while continuing contact remains permissible and may often be appropriate, the courts are no longer directed to ensure such contact by default. Parenting time must instead be justified as consistent with the child’s protection and welfare.
Further, based on the elimination of “frequent”, even if it is shown that continuing contact with both parents promotes the protection and welfare of the child, the frequency of contact is no longer included.
3. Child Safety as the Threshold Inquiry
The amendments elevate child safety to the threshold inquiry in custody determinations. Under the prior statute, safety concerns formed part of the broader best-interests analysis. The amended statute requires courts to evaluate safety issues before addressing other custody considerations. In assessing safety, courts must consider circumstances including child abuse, emotional or psychological harm, substance abuse, coercive or controlling conduct, unsafe living conditions, and risks affecting the safety of siblings.
The statute also limits judicial authority to expand parenting time or order therapy where abuse or other safety concerns exist. See Paragraph 6.
4. Greater Weight to Children’s Preferences and Mandatory Judicial Findings
The statute now ensures that courts consider the expressed preferences of children in all decisions concerning child custody and parenting time as a matter of public policy. In contested custody cases, children’s voices must also be considered. The statute does not prescribe any specific or limiting factors in directing courts to consider a child’s expressed preferences in the custody analysis such as age, capacity, maturity level, etc. However, these factors are included later in the amended statute in addressing whether therapy should be ordered that the child is resistant to. See also Paragraph 6.
Further, if a judge enters a custody order that differs from the child’s stated preference, the court must now place specific reasons on the record explaining the decision. See also Paragraph 5.
Further, courts may not presume parental alienation without investigating the child’s actual reasons for resistance when there is evidence of domestic violence or child abuse. While a child’s preference is not dispositive, the statute is now clear that it must be meaningfully addressed and weighed.
However, a concern is how old can the child be to express their preference? See case of DA v. RC, 438 N.J. Super. 431 (App. Div. 2014). This case provides insight on preference of the children, which provides commentary about the interview of the child. It also includes an assessment of the child. A child has a right to be heard even if Court does not consider it. However, the Appellate Division stated in that case that that no child should be able to select parent as N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) does not require it of the Court. Courts have expressed that they do not ask directly what the child prefers but ask questions such as, “What are some fun things you do at mother’s house or father’s house?” At the end of the day, this is only one of the factors for determining what is in the child’s best interests.
5. Enhanced Judicial Transparency
In contested custody matters, judges are now required to make detailed, on-the-record findings explaining how custody determinations were reached. This requirement also applies to situations where a judge’s decision is contrary to a child’s expressed preference. See also Paragraph 4.
6. Restrictions on Court-Ordered Therapy
This is the most sweeping change in the law. The amendments significantly restrict the circumstances under which courts may order therapy. Therapy must be supported by generally accepted, scientifically valid proof of safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value. Before directing therapy, courts must find good cause and evaluate multiple statutory considerations, including the reasons for any parent-child separation, the child’s age and maturity, the willingness of the parties to participate in therapy, the child’s prior therapeutic history, and any history of domestic violence or abuse. The factors set forth in the Statute were originally written for cases requiring reunification therapy. However, to analyze these factors, it may require a plenary hearing (if any type of therapy is needed) so there is more work for the Court when they are already stretched thin. This will undoubtedly protract case timelines.
Programs designed to reunite a resistant child with a parent may not be ordered without the consent of both parents and a determination that the child is of sufficient age and maturity to participate. Courts must also monitor any court-ordered therapy to ensure that it remains therapeutic rather than coercive or punitive in nature.
7. Qualifications of Mental Health Professionals
The statute now requires that mental health professionals involved in custody-related matters must be state-licensed. In cases involving abuse or domestic violence, professionals must also possess specialized training and experience.
Statutory Amendments Effective As Of January 2026
The amended statute was effective as of January 20, 2026, and applies to all pending and future custody matters. Existing custody orders are not automatically modified. Comment: Under Gibbons v. Gibbons, 86. N.J. 515 (1981), the Supreme Court favored prospective application of the statute. The question regarding the amendment to the statute is whether it is curative or making it better. If it is applied retroactively, is it a problem? It is difficult in the absence of guidance so it may be an issue that will need to be addressed on appeal.
Implications for Family Law Practitioners
The amendments to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 will likely influence both the presentation of evidence and strategy in custody matters. First, the statute eliminates the prior statutory emphasis on ensuring “frequent and continuing contact” with both parents. As a result, courts may focus more heavily on whether proposed custody arrangements promote the child’s safety and overall welfare rather than on maximizing parenting time.
The statute’s elevation and emphasis of child safety to the threshold inquiry will require courts to now place a greater emphasis on evidence addressing abuse, safety risks, substance abuse, coercive conduct, and other factors affecting a child’s physical or emotional welfare. Attorneys should be prepared to address these issues at the outset of custody proceedings and support relevant arguments with appropriate documentation and evidence to address any potential safety concerns.
The statute’s express recognition of children’s preferences may lead to greater use of judicial interviews with children and submissions from treating mental health professionals addressing a child’s ability to express a reasoned preference, but it still remains at the judge’s discretion under R. 5:8-6 and is only one of the factors in determining the child’s best interests. Moreover, the requirement that courts place specific reasons on the record when a custody decision differs from a child’s stated preference may increase the importance of ensuring that the child’s perspective is clearly reflected in the record.
The amendments impose stricter limitations on court-ordered therapy. As a result, courts may exercise greater caution when ordering therapeutic interventions and some therapists may need to obtain additional licensing and seek specialized training, particularly in cases where domestic violence is a concern, before participating in custody cases.
Finally, the statute now raises constitutional considerations, including but not limited to the 14th Amendment’s protection of a parent’s fundamental right to care, custody, companionship and control of their children under the Due Process Clause.
What to Expect Next: Periodic Review
Over the next three (3) years, there will be a statewide review to assess the impact of these change and its effects.
What New Jersey’s Updated Custody Law Means for Parents
The recent changes to New Jersey’s custody statute may significantly affect how custody and parenting time disputes are evaluated by the courts. As these updates begin to take effect, it is important for parents to understand how the law may impact their rights and their case.
If you have questions about how these changes may affect your family or your current custody matter, contact Lyons & Associates, P.C. to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced family law attorneys.
