A Trump special envoy allegedly leveraged federal immigration enforcement to remove his ex-partner from the United States during an active custody dispute over their teenage son, according to a March 20, 2026 New York Times investigation. The case raises urgent questions about whether immigration status can be weaponized in New York family court proceedings, where the "best interests of the child" standard under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 is supposed to govern custody outcomes, not a parent's connections to federal agencies.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Paolo Zampolli allegedly contacted a senior ICE official to have ex-partner Amanda Ungaro detained and deported to Brazil during their custody battle |
| When | Reported by The New York Times on March 20, 2026 |
| Who is involved | Zampolli (Trump special envoy who introduced Donald and Melania Trump), Amanda Ungaro (Brazilian national), their teenage son |
| Key statute | N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 — best interests of the child standard |
| What triggered ICE | Ungaro was picked up by ICE agents before she could post bail on fraud charges |
| Practical impact | Deportation effectively ended the custody dispute by removing one parent from U.S. jurisdiction |
This Case Exposes a Dangerous Gap in Family Court Protections
New York family courts operate under a straightforward principle: custody decisions must serve the best interests of the child, not the strategic interests of either parent. N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1) requires judges to weigh factors including each parent's ability to provide a stable environment, the quality of the home, and the child's emotional ties to each parent. Immigration status is not among the enumerated factors.
The Zampolli case, as reported by The New York Times, describes a scenario where a parent with political connections allegedly bypassed the family court process entirely. Rather than litigating custody on the merits, the allegation is that Zampolli contacted a senior ICE official to have Ungaro detained before she could post bail on separate fraud charges. Once deported to Brazil, Ungaro lost practical access to the New York court system, her son, and her ability to contest custody.
This matters beyond the individuals involved because approximately 5.9 million U.S. citizen children have at least one undocumented parent, according to the Migration Policy Institute's 2022 estimates. In New York alone, mixed-status families are common in family court proceedings, and the fear of immigration enforcement being used as a custody weapon is not hypothetical.
How New York Law Handles Immigration Status in Custody Cases
New York courts have consistently held that a parent's immigration status alone is not a proper basis for denying custody or visitation. The controlling standard under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1)(a) lists 10 factors courts must consider, including the wishes of the child, the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, domestic violence history, and the need for stability. Immigration status appears nowhere in this list.
New York Family Court Act § 154-c, enacted in 2017, goes further. It prohibits court officers and employees from inquiring about immigration status in civil matters, including custody and visitation proceedings. The statute was designed specifically to prevent immigration enforcement from chilling participation in family court.
The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, implemented in the United States through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (22 U.S.C. § 9001), also provides protections when a child is wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence. If Ungaro's son was habitually resident in the United States, Brazil could be obligated to facilitate the return of the child under the treaty, which both the U.S. and Brazil have signed.
New York courts have also recognized the concept of constructive interference with custody. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1), a parent who actively undermines the other parent's relationship with a child can face adverse custody consequences. Courts have modified custody orders when one parent engaged in conduct designed to eliminate the other parent from the child's life.
Practical Takeaways for New York Parents
-
Document everything in writing. If you are in a custody dispute and have concerns about immigration-related retaliation, keep records of all communications, threats, and interactions with your co-parent. New York courts rely heavily on documented evidence when evaluating claims of interference with custody rights.
-
Seek an emergency order of protection if threatened. Under New York Family Court Act § 842, family courts can issue temporary orders of protection that address specific threats, including threats to contact immigration authorities. These orders can be obtained on an emergency basis, sometimes within 24 hours.
-
Establish legal representation before a crisis occurs. New York provides access to assigned counsel in custody proceedings under Family Court Act § 262, and organizations like the Legal Aid Society and Safe Horizon serve mixed-status families specifically.
-
File a custody petition proactively. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240, either parent can initiate a custody proceeding. Having an active court order in place creates a legal record that makes unilateral removal of a child significantly harder to accomplish and easier to challenge.
-
Know your rights regarding ICE enforcement. Under current New York City policy (Executive Order 41 as amended), city employees and law enforcement are generally prohibited from honoring ICE detainers without a judicial warrant. New York State does not have an equivalent statewide sanctuary policy, but city residents have additional protections.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can immigration status be used against a parent in New York custody court?
No. New York courts determine custody based on the best interests of the child under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240, and immigration status is not an enumerated factor. Family Court Act § 154-c, enacted in 2017, explicitly prohibits court personnel from inquiring about immigration status in civil proceedings, including custody cases.
What happens to a custody case if one parent is deported from the United States?
Deportation does not automatically terminate parental rights under New York law. The deported parent retains the right to participate in custody proceedings, though practical barriers are significant. Courts can arrange remote participation, and the Hague Convention (22 U.S.C. § 9001) may require the return of children wrongfully retained across international borders.
Can a New York court punish a parent who weaponizes immigration enforcement in a custody dispute?
Yes. New York courts can modify custody orders when one parent engages in conduct that undermines the child's relationship with the other parent. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1), a pattern of interference, including using government agencies to remove a co-parent, can be weighed against the offending parent in best-interests analysis.
Is threatening to call ICE on a co-parent considered domestic violence in New York?
New York recognizes coercive control as a factor in family court proceedings. Threatening immigration enforcement to gain leverage in a custody dispute can constitute a form of coercion. Under Family Court Act § 812, family courts have jurisdiction over harassment and intimidation between family members, regardless of immigration status.
What should I do if my co-parent threatens to report me to immigration authorities?
Act immediately. File for an order of protection under New York Family Court Act § 842, which courts can issue on a temporary emergency basis. Document every threat in writing. Contact a family law attorney experienced in mixed-status custody cases. New York City residents can also call the ActionNYC hotline (800-354-0365) for free immigration legal help.
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.