On January 21, 2026, Gov. Phil Murphy signed S4510 into law, which substantially amends N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, the New Jersey statute that guides how courts decide child custody issues in family law proceedings. The changes are effective immediately and mark the most significant update in years to how custody cases are evaluated by New Jersey courts. The New Jersey State Bar Association and other major legal organizations regarding family law OPPOSED this bill because of concerns that it is too broad and places children at the center of conflict. The law also contains some open holes that caselaw will inevitably have to flesh out, creating a period of some uncertainty as courts grapple with the new directives.
What N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 Covers (Before the Amendment)
Before this amendment, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 was the statute that laid out:
-
The policy of promoting frequent, continuing contact with both parents.
-
That parents’ rights are equal.
-
The types of custody arrangements a court can order (joint, sole, or other).
The statute required courts to consider a list of factors in custody decisions — including parents’ ability to cooperate, the child’s needs, any history of abuse, and the child’s preference when of sufficient age and capacity.
Key Changes in the 2026 Amendment
The new law retained the overall “best interests of the child” framework, but clarifies judicial priorities and heightens the weight of certain factors, making the statute more directive on how judges should approach custody cases. Among the most important updates:
1. A Child’s Preference Carries Greater Weight
Under the prior law, the child’s stated preference was just one factor among many. The new statute explicitly says that when a child’s preference is contrary to a custody arrangement the court might order:
the court must place on the record the factors that justify disregarding the child’s expressed preference.
This change elevates the voice of the child in contested custody disputes and makes courts more accountable if they decide not to follow what a child of appropriate age and maturity expresses.
2. Child Safety Is a Threshold Requirement
The amendment makes clear that protecting the child’s safety is the court’s first priority — especially in cases involving allegations of abuse, domestic violence, or other safety risks. Courts are now required to address safety before moving on to custody schedules or parenting time plans. This reflects a shift toward ensuring harmful situations are confronted before decisions about time allocation are made.
3. Clearer Direction for Judges
Previously, judges had broad discretion under N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, which sometimes led to inconsistent outcomes. The amendment adds clarity by:
-
Specifying how factors like safety and child preference should be treated.
-
Emphasizing individualized, case-by-case custody evaluations.
-
Directing courts to ensure that any required therapy or treatment in custody cases must be scientifically sound, consistent with federal guidance (such as aspects of federal Violence Against Women Act reauthorization under “Kayden’s Law”).
4. Documentation of Judicial Reasoning
The updated statute continues to require courts to document their reasoning when custody orders differ from parents’ agreements — but now with enhanced emphasis on articulating why child safety or child preferences were not determinative in a particular case.
Why the Amendment Matters
These changes are among the most consequential to New Jersey’s custody law in recent memory because they:
-
Give children a louder voice in custody decisions.
-
Prioritize safety above convenience in cases involving risk.
-
Provide clearer guidance to judges, attorneys, and families about how cases should be evaluated.
-
Reduce uncertainty by shaping how courts balance competing factors.
For parents and attorneys, this means that custody litigation going forward will likely involve:
-
Greater focus on documenting the child’s expressed views and increased numbers of child interviews.
-
More robust early inquiry into safety concerns.
-
Legal argument framed around how the statute now directs rather than merely suggests certain judicial considerations.
You will need a good lawyer to navigate these changes. If you would like a free consult to discuss how your situation may be affected, call 856-227-7888.