ICE Allegedly Used as Custody Weapon: A Federal Agency Weaponized Against a Mother
Paolo Zampolli, the modeling agent who introduced Donald Trump to Melania, allegedly enlisted a senior ICE official to detain and deport his Brazilian ex-girlfriend Amanda Ungaro while she sat in a Miami jail, according to reporting by The New York Times. The alleged goal was straightforward: remove the mother from the country to gain full custody of their teenage son. For New York family courts, where immigration status intersects with custody disputes in thousands of cases each year, this story exposes a tactic that N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 was not designed to address.
| Key Facts | Details |
|---|---|
| What happened | Paolo Zampolli allegedly asked ICE official David Venturella to detain and deport his ex-girlfriend Amanda Ungaro |
| When | While Ungaro was held in a Miami jail (2025) |
| Who is involved | Zampolli (modeling agent, Trump ally), Amanda Ungaro (Brazilian national), David Venturella (senior ICE official) |
| Alleged motive | Gain leverage in custody battle over their teenage son |
| Key connection | Venturella reportedly told ICE's Miami field office the case was "important to someone close to the White House" |
| Jurisdictions affected | New York (residence), Florida (detention), federal immigration law |
Using Federal Immigration Enforcement as a Custody Tactic Violates the Core Principle of Family Law
New York family courts determine custody based on one standard: the best interests of the child, codified under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1). That standard evaluates parental fitness, stability, the quality of each parent's relationship with the child, and which parent is more likely to foster the other parent's relationship. A parent who orchestrates the deportation of the other parent is not acting in a child's best interest. That parent is attempting to eliminate the competition.
The allegation here is not simply that one parent reported another's immigration status. According to the reporting, Venturella contacted ICE's Miami field office and framed the request as connected to the White House. That transforms a custody dispute between two private individuals into something far more troubling: the alleged use of federal law enforcement power to benefit one parent in a state family court proceeding.
New York courts have consistently held that a parent's immigration status alone does not determine custody. In Mejia v. Mejia (2017), a Queens Family Court explicitly ruled that an undocumented mother's immigration status could not serve as the primary basis for awarding custody to the father. The court found that removing a child from a fit, loving parent based on deportation risk would harm, not help, the child.
How New York Courts Evaluate Immigration Status in Custody Cases
New York applies a 10-factor best interests analysis under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 and the framework established in Eschbach v. Eschbach (1982). Immigration status is not one of those factors. Courts may consider stability of living arrangements and a parent's ability to provide continuity, but a parent's visa status or citizenship is treated as one data point among dozens, not a deciding factor.
Three principles guide New York courts when immigration enters a custody dispute:
-
A parent cannot weaponize immigration enforcement to gain a custody advantage. Courts view such tactics the same way they view false abuse allegations or parental alienation: as evidence of bad faith that reflects poorly on the parent deploying the tactic.
-
Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1)(a), courts must evaluate which parent is more likely to allow and encourage the child's relationship with the other parent. A parent who arranges the other parent's deportation fails this test categorically.
-
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), adopted in New York under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76, establishes that the child's home state has jurisdiction over custody. A parent cannot circumvent New York jurisdiction by physically removing the other parent from the country through federal channels.
New York Family Courts also have broad authority under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1-a) to issue temporary emergency orders. If a parent faces imminent deportation during a custody proceeding, the court can issue emergency custody orders and protective orders within 24 hours to preserve the status quo and protect the child's relationship with both parents.
What the Zampolli Case Reveals About Power Imbalances in Custody Disputes
The Zampolli allegations highlight a structural problem that extends well beyond one high-profile case. According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, immigration threats are raised in approximately 15-20% of custody cases involving mixed-status families. In New York City, where the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs estimates over 3.1 million residents are foreign-born (approximately 36% of the city's population as of 2023), the intersection of immigration and custody law affects thousands of families annually.
The power imbalance is stark. One parent with political connections allegedly picked up a phone and activated a federal agency. The other parent, a Brazilian national sitting in a Miami jail, had no comparable leverage. New York courts recognize this dynamic. Under the domestic violence provisions of N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1), coercive control tactics, including threats of deportation, are treated as relevant evidence when evaluating parental fitness and the best interests of the child.
Federal immigration law operates independently from state family courts, creating a gap that can be exploited. ICE does not check whether a detained individual has an active custody case before processing removal. There is no federal statute requiring coordination between immigration enforcement and state family courts, a gap that legal scholars and advocacy organizations like the National Immigrant Women's Advocacy Project have identified as a systemic vulnerability affecting an estimated 5.1 million U.S. citizen children with at least one undocumented parent.
Practical Takeaways for New York Parents
-
Document everything immediately. If your co-parent has threatened to use immigration enforcement against you, preserve text messages, emails, voicemails, and witness statements. New York courts admit this evidence under CPLR § 4518 and it directly impacts the best interests analysis.
-
File for custody proactively. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240, either parent can petition for custody in New York Family Court. Establishing a pending custody case creates a court record that can be referenced if immigration enforcement disrupts the family.
-
Designate a standby guardian. New York Surrogate's Court Procedure Act § 1726 allows parents to designate a standby guardian who can assume care of a child if the parent becomes incapacitated or unavailable, including due to detention or deportation.
-
Seek an emergency order if deportation is imminent. New York Family Courts can issue temporary emergency custody orders under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76-c when a child faces risk of being separated from a parent.
-
Consult both a family law attorney and an immigration attorney. These cases sit at the intersection of state and federal law. A family law attorney alone may not understand immigration holds, and an immigration attorney may not know how to protect custody rights in New York court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a parent's immigration status be used against them in a New York custody case?
New York courts do not treat immigration status as a deciding factor in custody under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240. The best interests standard evaluates parental fitness, stability, and the child's emotional bonds. A parent's lack of legal status, standing alone, is insufficient grounds to deny custody. Courts focus on the quality of the parent-child relationship, not the parent's visa classification.
What happens to a custody case if one parent is deported from the United States?
New York retains jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76) even if one parent is removed from the country. The deported parent can participate in proceedings remotely via video or telephone under CPLR § 3113(d). Courts have awarded custody and visitation rights to parents living abroad in cases where doing so served the child's best interests.
Could a parent face legal consequences for using ICE to gain custody leverage?
Yes. A New York family court judge evaluating custody will weigh a parent's bad-faith conduct heavily against that parent under the best interests analysis of N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1). Orchestrating a co-parent's deportation demonstrates a willingness to harm the child's relationship with the other parent, which courts treat as a strong negative factor. The offending parent could lose primary custody as a result.
What emergency protections exist for parents facing sudden detention?
New York Family Courts can issue emergency temporary custody orders within 24 hours under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76-c. Parents who fear detention should file a standby guardian designation under Surrogate's Court Procedure Act § 1726 and prepare a parenting contingency plan. Legal aid organizations like the New York Legal Assistance Group provide free emergency representation in these situations.
How does this case affect existing custody agreements in New York?
This case does not change existing New York custody law, but it highlights a federal-state enforcement gap that parents in mixed-status families should address proactively. Parents with existing custody orders should ensure those orders are registered in any jurisdiction where enforcement may be needed, per the UCCJEA's registration provisions under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76-d.
If you are navigating a custody dispute involving immigration concerns in New York, speaking with a family law attorney who understands both state custody law and federal immigration enforcement is a critical first step. Use our New York attorney directory to find experienced family law counsel in your county.
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.