A federal immigration enforcement agency allegedly intervened in a private custody dispute at the request of a well-connected political figure, resulting in the deportation of a mother fighting for custody of her teenage son. Paolo Zampolli, the former modeling agent who introduced Donald and Melania Trump, reportedly asked an ICE official to detain his Brazilian ex-girlfriend Amanda Ungaro during their ongoing custody battle in Florida, according to reporting by The New York Times and The New Republic.
| Key Facts | Details |
|---|---|
| What happened | Paolo Zampolli allegedly asked an ICE official to detain and deport Amanda Ungaro, his ex-girlfriend and mother of their teenage son |
| When | Reported March 2026; custody proceedings ongoing |
| Where | Florida (custody case); federal immigration enforcement |
| Who is affected | Parents in custody disputes who hold non-citizen immigration status |
| Key allegation | ICE official reportedly told Miami agents the case was "important to someone close to the White House" |
| Broader impact | Raises questions about whether immigration enforcement can be weaponized in family court disputes nationwide |
Using Immigration Enforcement as a Custody Weapon Violates the Core Purpose of Family Law
Family courts across the United States, including New York, operate under one governing principle: the best interests of the child. When a parent allegedly leverages federal law enforcement connections to remove the other parent from the country entirely, that action directly undermines the child's fundamental right to a relationship with both parents. New York courts have consistently held that maintaining meaningful contact with both parents serves a child's welfare, regardless of a parent's citizenship status.
The allegations in this case are striking because they suggest a private citizen used political connections to redirect a federal enforcement agency toward a personal family dispute. If true, this represents an extraordinary misuse of government power. The ICE official who reportedly characterized the matter as "important to someone close to the White House" essentially converted a custody disagreement into a federal enforcement priority, bypassing the family court system that exists specifically to resolve these disputes.
This is not a hypothetical concern. Immigration attorneys and family law practitioners have documented a pattern of parents using immigration status as leverage in custody proceedings. A 2023 American Immigration Lawyers Association survey found that 48% of responding attorneys had clients whose immigration status was raised as a threat during family court proceedings.
How New York Law Protects Non-Citizen Parents in Custody Disputes
New York family courts evaluate custody under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240, which requires judges to determine custody based on the best interests of the child. Immigration status is not a statutory factor in that analysis. New York courts have repeatedly declined to treat a parent's undocumented or precarious immigration status as a basis for denying custody or reducing parenting time.
Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 75-i, which incorporates the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), New York courts retain jurisdiction over custody matters even when one parent is removed from the country. A deportation does not automatically transfer custody to the remaining parent. The court maintains authority to issue and enforce custody orders, and the deported parent retains standing to participate in proceedings.
New York courts also have broad authority under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 236(B) to address misconduct during litigation. If a judge finds that one parent manipulated government agencies to gain a tactical advantage in custody proceedings, that conduct can be weighed against the offending parent. Courts have discretion to impose sanctions, adjust custody arrangements, or draw adverse inferences from litigation misconduct.
The New York Court of Appeals addressed a related principle in Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer (1982), establishing that no single factor, including a parent's background or status, should be treated as determinative. The totality of circumstances governs, and courts are expected to look past surface-level advantages to evaluate which arrangement genuinely serves the child.
What Makes This Case Different From Ordinary Custody Disputes
Custody battles routinely involve allegations of misconduct, parental alienation, and attempts to gain strategic advantage. What elevates the Zampolli-Ungaro matter beyond a typical high-conflict divorce is the alleged involvement of federal law enforcement acting on a private request routed through political connections.
Ordinary custody tools available to parents include filing for emergency custody orders, requesting supervised visitation, or presenting evidence of unfitness. These tools operate within the family court system, with judicial oversight and procedural protections for both parties. Allegedly directing ICE to detain and deport a co-parent bypasses every one of those safeguards.
Florida, where the custody case is pending, evaluates parenting arrangements under Fla. Stat. § 61.13, which similarly prioritizes the best interests of the child and includes 20 statutory factors. Among those factors is any evidence of a parent attempting to undermine the child's relationship with the other parent. A Florida court reviewing these allegations would likely consider whether Zampolli's conduct, if proven, constitutes an extreme form of parental interference.
The case also raises due process concerns under the 5th and 14th Amendments. If a parent is physically removed from the United States during active custody proceedings, that parent loses the practical ability to appear in court, access counsel, and present evidence. Federal courts have recognized that parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of their children under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Practical Takeaways for New York Parents
-
Immigration status cannot be used as a custody factor in New York. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240, judges evaluate the best interests of the child without regard to a parent's citizenship or immigration status. If your co-parent threatens to report you to immigration authorities, document those threats immediately.
-
Deportation does not terminate custody rights. New York courts retain jurisdiction under the UCCJEA even after a parent is removed from the country. A deported parent can still participate in proceedings, file motions, and seek enforcement of existing custody orders through counsel.
-
Document any threats involving immigration enforcement. If your co-parent threatens to involve ICE, CBP, or any immigration agency as leverage in your custody case, preserve text messages, emails, and voicemails. New York judges can consider this conduct when evaluating which parent better supports the child's relationship with both parents.
-
Seek both family law and immigration counsel simultaneously. Parents facing immigration-related threats in custody disputes need attorneys in both practice areas. A family law attorney can seek protective orders and emergency relief under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 252, while an immigration attorney can address any underlying status concerns.
-
Request a stay or protective order proactively. If you believe your co-parent may attempt to weaponize immigration enforcement, New York courts have authority to issue orders specifically addressing this conduct. Filing early establishes a record and puts the court on notice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a New York court prevent ICE from deporting a parent during a custody case?
New York state courts cannot directly order federal agencies to halt deportation proceedings. However, family court judges can issue findings that a parent's presence is necessary for pending custody matters, which immigration judges may consider as a discretionary factor. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240, courts can also issue temporary custody orders protecting the child's placement if a parent faces removal.
Does a parent lose custody rights in New York if they are deported?
Deportation does not terminate custody rights under New York law. The UCCJEA, codified in N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 75-a through § 75-kkk, preserves court jurisdiction regardless of a parent's physical location. A deported parent retains full standing to participate through counsel, file motions, and seek modification or enforcement of custody orders from outside the United States.
Is it illegal to report a co-parent to ICE during a custody dispute in New York?
No specific New York statute criminalizes reporting a co-parent to immigration authorities. However, New York courts can treat such conduct as evidence of bad faith and parental unfitness under the best-interests analysis in N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240. A parent who weaponizes immigration enforcement risks adverse custody findings, sanctions, and potential contempt proceedings if the conduct violates existing court orders.
How common is immigration status being used as leverage in custody battles?
Immigration-based threats in custody disputes are a documented and growing concern. A 2023 American Immigration Lawyers Association survey found 48% of responding attorneys reported clients facing immigration-related threats during family proceedings. In New York, which has approximately 2.1 million foreign-born non-citizen residents according to the American Community Survey, these tactics can affect a significant number of custody cases.
What should I do if my ex threatens to call ICE on me during our New York custody case?
Document everything immediately: save text messages, emails, and voicemails containing the threats. File a written record with your family law attorney and consider requesting an emergency protective order from the court. Contact an immigration attorney to assess your status and options. New York family courts take interference with the parent-child relationship seriously, and documented threats can significantly impact custody determinations under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.