On January 20, 2026, New Jersey amended its main child custody law, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. This guide explains, in everyday language, what the law said before, what it says now, and what the Legislature said about its reasons for each change.
We do not take a position on whether any changes are good or bad. Where the official legislative record does not explain a reason, this guide says so rather than guessing.
Background
N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 is the statute New Jersey judges use when parents disagree on custody and parenting time. It lists the factors a judge must consider in deciding what arrangement is in a child’s best interests.
What is “Kayden’s Law”?
“Kayden’s Law” is the popular name for a federal law passed in 2022 as part of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It is named for Kayden Mancuso, a seven-year-old Pennsylvania girl who was killed by her father in 2018 during a court-ordered visit.
Because family law is decided by each state, the federal law does not change New Jersey’s custody rules directly. Instead, it offers additional federal grant funding to states whose laws meet certain child-safety requirements in custody cases, such as limits on reunification programs that are not shown to be safe and effective and training for those who handle abuse cases.
New Jersey’s new law refers to Kayden’s Law by name, stating that court-ordered therapy should be scientifically valid “consistent with ‘Kayden’s Law.’”
How the law was written
The bill changed significantly as it moved through the New Jersey Legislature. That history helps explain some of the final language.
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| May 22, 2025 | Bill introduced in the Senate. |
| June 26, 2025 | Senate committee rewrites the bill with input from judges, lawyers and mental-health experts. This version focused specifically on reunification therapy. The Senate passed it in June. |
| Dec. 15–18, 2025 | Assembly committees make major changes: the therapy rules are expanded to cover any court-ordered therapy, the child may speak privately with the judge, and a study is funded. |
| Dec. 16, 2025 | The New Jersey State Bar Association announces its opposition to the December changes. |
| Dec. 22, 2025 | Further Assembly amendments add the consent rule, abuse-related protections and other changes. |
| Jan. 20, 2026 | Signed into law by Governor Murphy; effective immediately. |
The official explanations for the changes come mainly from (1) the “findings and declarations” the Legislature wrote into the statute itself, and (2) written statements issued by the legislative committees and with the floor amendments. Those statements mostly describe what each change does; they give a stated reason for only some of the changes.
Summary of the Changes
| Topic | Before | Now |
|---|---|---|
| Stated purpose of the law | Assure children of “frequent and continuing contact” with both parents. | Children’s physical and emotional protection and welfare come first; safety is a “threshold issue”; continuing contact is one part of welfare. |
| Factors the judge considers | Included domestic violence and the child’s safety. | Adds child abuse, the safety of siblings, input from the child’s own therapist, and assessments by court-appointed professionals. |
| Child’s preference | A factor the judge considered. | Still a factor; if the judge rules against it, the judge must explain why on the record. |
| Court-ordered therapy | Judges had broad discretion to order therapy. | Therapy must have scientific proof of safety and effectiveness, and good cause must be shown. |
| Reunification programs | Could be ordered by the judge. | Require both parties’ consent and a finding that the child is old enough. |
| Child speaking to the judge | Up to the judge’s discretion under court rules. | A child of sufficient age who asks must be allowed to speak privately with the judge, with the record sealed (in the therapy context). |
| Abuse-related protections | Not addressed in this statute. | No assumption that one parent caused a child’s reluctance; an abusive parent cannot gain custody just to repair the relationship. |
| Study | None. | Rutgers must report on the law’s effects within three years. |
Each Change Explained
1. The Stated Purpose of the Custody Law
Before: The law began by declaring that New Jersey’s policy was to assure children of “frequent and continuing contact with both parents” after their parents separate or divorce, and to encourage parents to share child-rearing.
Now: The law declares that children’s protection and welfare, physically and emotionally, are “held paramount.” Continuing contact with both parents is described as something that can be part of a child’s welfare, and shared parenting is encouraged “if that is in the best interest of the child.” The law also states that children’s safety is of paramount importance, that judges’ decisions should “promote the safety of children as a threshold issue,” and that children’s preferences should be considered.
What the Legislature said: The reasons are stated in the findings themselves: the Legislature “recognizes that the safety of children is of paramount importance and is an integral element of the child’s best interests,” and that children “should also have their voices considered in contested custody cases.” The committee statements describe the change as clarifying the Legislature’s intent.
Important to understand: The words “frequent and” were removed, but the law still refers to continuing contact with both parents. The prior language was a statement of policy; New Jersey law has never had a rule that automatically awards joint or equal custody.
2. New Factors the Judge Must Consider
Before: The list of factors included “the history of domestic violence, if any” and “the safety of the child and the safety of either parent from physical abuse by the other parent,” along with other factors such as the child’s needs, stability of each home, and the fitness of each parent.
Now: Four additions:
- the history of child abuse, in addition to domestic violence;
- the safety of the child’s brothers and sisters;
- the input and supporting documentation of the child’s own licensed therapist, if the child has one, to the extent that the therapist’s license allows; and
- in judging each parent’s fitness, any assessments by court-appointed professionals.
What the Legislature said: The committees explained that in contested custody cases the court is often presented only with the testimony of the parents, which may not be enough information to decide what is best for the child. Some family part judges also expressed concern for the weight to be given to expert reports in custody and parenting time disputes, viewing same as “net opinions”. The bill was intended to let the court receive information from the child and the child’s treating therapist.
The child-abuse and sibling-safety factors were added by the December 22, 2025 floor amendments; the floor statement describes those additions but does not give a separate reason.
3. The Standard for Finding a Parent “Unfit”
Before: A parent could not be found unfit unless the parent’s conduct had “a substantial adverse effect on the child.”
Now: The same standard, reworded slightly: “unless that parent’s conduct has a substantial adverse effect on the child.”
What the Legislature said: This is not a real change in the standard. During the process, one committee version would have lowered it to “an adverse effect.” After objections, the final floor amendments restored the word “substantial,” and the floor statement describes this as clarifying that a parent cannot be found unfit unless that parent’s conduct has a substantial adverse effect on the child.
4. When the Judge Rules Against What the Child Wants
Before: Judges considered a child’s preference if the child was old enough and mature enough to form an intelligent opinion. Judges already had to explain on the record the reasons for any custody arrangement the parents had not agreed to.
Now: The child’s preference remains one factor, not a decision the child makes. But if the judge orders an arrangement that goes against the child’s expressed preference, the judge must explain on the record both why the arrangement was chosen and why the judge decided not to follow the child’s preference.
What the Legislature said: The law’s findings state that children should have their voices considered in contested custody cases. This requirement was in the original bill, was removed in the Senate committee in June 2025, and was restored by the December 22, 2025 floor amendments; the floor statement describes it as restoring the requirement without adding further explanation.
Not changed: An early version would have required a child’s court-appointed lawyer or guardian to advocate for what the child wants. That requirement was removed and is not in the final law.
5. Court-Ordered Therapy
Before: The custody statute did not address therapy. Judges could order family members into counseling or therapy as part of a custody case based on their general authority to protect a child’s best interests.
Now: A judge may not order any therapy in a custody case unless:
- there is generally accepted, scientifically valid proof that the therapy is safe, effective, and has therapeutic value; and
- there is a showing of good cause that therapy is appropriate.
To decide whether there is good cause, the judge must consider factors such as the reasons for and length of any separation between parent and child; the child’s age, maturity, and any special needs; whether each parent and the child are willing to take part; each parent’s conduct; the child’s past therapy (summarized in a way that respects medical privacy laws); and any history of domestic violence or child abuse.
What the Legislature said: The findings state that court-ordered therapy “should be scientifically valid and have generally accepted proof of effectiveness and therapeutic value consistent with ‘Kayden’s Law.’” The earlier versions of the bill applied these rules only to “reunification therapy.” In December 2025, the Assembly Judiciary Committee removed the specific references to reunification therapy, which made the rules apply to therapy generally. The committee statement records that change but does not give a separate reason for broadening it.
6. Reunification Programs Require Both Parties’ Consent
Before: When a child was resisting or refusing contact with a parent, a judge could order reunification therapy over a parent’s objection.
Now: A judge may not order a treatment program intended to reunite a child with a parent the child is estranged from and resists or refuses to see unless both parties consent and the judge finds the child is old enough. Parents can still agree to therapy on their own without a court order.
What the Legislature said: The December 22, 2025 floor statement describes this as clarifying that both parents must consent to such a program. No further reason is stated in the official record. The federal Kayden’s Law framework encourages states to limit reunification treatments that have not been shown to be safe and effective.
Many family law practitioners, including the New Jersey State Bar Association, regard this as one of the most significant and debated changes, and the courts have not yet issued published guidance on how it applies.
7. The Child May Speak Privately With the Judge
Before: Under court rules, a judge could choose to interview a child, and that interview was recorded.
Now: When a judge is deciding whether to order therapy, a child who is old enough and asks to speak with the judge must be allowed to do so privately, in the judge’s chambers and off the record, and the record of that conversation is sealed. The child may also submit letters from the child’s own licensed therapist about the child’s maturity. Children of sufficient age may also ask to report on their experience in any court-ordered therapy.
What the Legislature said: The committee statements explain that the bill allows the court to receive information directly from the child because the parents’ testimony alone may not be sufficient. The requirement that the record be sealed was added by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on December 18, 2025; the statement records the change without separate explanation.
Note: How this new provision fits with the existing court rule on recorded interviews is a question the courts have not yet resolved.
8. Who May Provide Court-Ordered Therapy, and Ongoing Court Oversight
Before: The statute had no rules on who could be appointed or how therapy would be supervised.
Now: The judge may appoint only a State-licensed mental health professional.
If there is evidence of domestic violence or child abuse, that professional must have substantial training and experience working with people who have experienced that kind of abuse.
The therapist reports to the court periodically, and the judge may change, pause, or stop the therapy, explaining why on the record.
What the Legislature said: The Senate committee in June 2025 added regular reporting so the court could monitor therapy. The licensing and abuse-training requirements were added by the December 22, 2025 floor amendments, described as clarifications. The federal Kayden’s Law framework emphasizes expertise in domestic violence and child abuse.
9. Practices the Law Prohibits
Before: Not addressed in the statute.
Now: Court-ordered therapy may not:
- cut a child off from a safe parent, who is not physically or sexually abusive, with whom the child is bonded;
- use force, threats of force, or physical obstruction that put the child’s safety at risk; or
- use undue coercion, verbal abuse, or isolation from the child’s family, community, or other support.
What the Legislature said: The committee statements describe these as prohibitions on therapy that cuts off a child from a parent with whom the child is bonded or that involves force, coercion, or isolation. The federal Kayden’s Law framework discourages reunification programs that require cutting a child off from a protective parent. No additional New Jersey-specific reason is given.
10. Two Protections Related to Abuse
Before: Not addressed in the statute.
Now: Two new rules:
- A judge may not assume that a child’s reluctance to spend time with one parent was caused by the other parent.
- Where there is evidence of a history of domestic violence or child abuse, the parent responsible may not be given more custody simply to improve the relationship or to overcome the child’s reluctance.
What the Legislature said: The second rule was added by the December 22, 2025 floor amendments, described as a clarification. The official record does not provide a further explanation for either rule beyond the safety-related findings at the start of the statute.
Before the change, when a court found that a parent had interfered with the child’s relationship with the other parent, the court could consider a range of remedies, including a change of custody, if that served the child’s best interests.
The New Jersey State Bar Association has expressed concern that the new law may limit those options. The statute does not expressly prohibit a change of custody in that situation. It prohibits the court from presuming that one parent caused the child’s reluctance, and, where there is a history of domestic violence or child abuse, from increasing the offending parent’s custody to improve the relationship.
How courts will handle these cases has not yet been decided in a published opinion.
11. A Study of the Law’s Effects
Now: Within three years, the Institute for Families at the Rutgers School of Social Work, working with the Administrative Office of the Courts, must report to the Governor and Legislature on how the changes have affected family reunification and the resolution of custody cases. The law provides $500,000 each to Rutgers and the courts for this purpose.
What the Legislature said: The study is meant to give the Legislature the information needed to evaluate whether the law is effective. An earlier version assigned the study to the courts alone with $1 million; the Assembly Appropriations Committee moved the lead role to Rutgers and split the funding.
The official record does not say why the study was added. It first appeared in the Assembly Judiciary Committee amendments of December 15, 2025, and the Assembly Appropriations Committee revised it on December 18.
The Public Debate, Briefly
Supporters described the law as putting children’s safety first, giving children a greater voice, and limiting therapies that lack scientific support.
The New Jersey State Bar Association supported the June 2025 Senate version but opposed the final version. The state Bar’s concerns included (1) requiring both parents’ consent could let one parent block reunification efforts, (2) that the scientific-proof requirement could make ordinary therapy harder and more expensive to obtain, and (3) that the new provisions could place children in the middle of their parents’ dispute, creating greater conflict for the parents and the child and/or give too much power to the child.
Courts have not yet issued a published decision interpreting the new law.
What This Means for Families
- The new law took effect on January 20, 2026.
- It does not say that it automatically changes existing custody orders.
- Changing an existing custody or parenting-time order (including an agreement made part of a judgment) requires either a new agreement submitted to the court or an application to the court.
- How the new law applies to cases that were already pending when it took effect is still being worked out.
- Family Part judges have not yet addressed in any published decision how the amended statute will be applied.
If you have a custody or parenting time matter, or an order that involves therapy or reunification between your child and you or your former partner, talk with a family law attorney about how these changes may affect you. If you would like to speak with one of the experienced family law attorneys at Diamond & Diamond, P.A., please call 973-379-9292, or email us at [email protected] or contact us online.