A New York Times investigation published in April 2026 alleges that Paolo Zampolli, a longtime Trump-Melania associate, telephoned senior ICE official David Venturella while his Brazilian ex-partner Amanda Ungaro sat in a Miami jail, asking whether she could be transferred into immigration custody. Ungaro was deported to Brazil after roughly 8 months of detention, leaving Zampolli with de facto custody of their teenage son Giovanni. For New York parents in contested custody fights, the case signals that federal immigration enforcement can now intersect with family court in ways N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 was never designed to handle.
Key Facts
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| What happened | Trump ally Paolo Zampolli allegedly phoned ICE official David Venturella to request his ex-partner's transfer into ICE custody during a custody dispute |
| When | Call occurred while Amanda Ungaro was jailed in Miami; deportation followed after ~8 months detention; reported April 2026 |
| Where | Miami detention; child Giovanni lives in New York/Florida; custody implications cross both jurisdictions |
| Who is affected | Amanda Ungaro (deported to Brazil), teenage son Giovanni, and any co-parent facing immigration-related custody leverage |
| Key statute | N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 (best interests); N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76 (UCCJEA jurisdiction) |
| Impact | Raises novel questions about whether third-party use of federal immigration enforcement constitutes custodial interference |
The reporting comes from a New York Times investigation summarized by The Daily Beast and IBTimes. Zampolli has not been criminally charged, and the allegations remain contested. This commentary addresses the underlying legal doctrine, not the specific strategy of any party in an ongoing matter.
Why this matters legally
This case exposes a structural gap between federal immigration power and state family courts. New York family courts have exclusive authority over custody decisions for children domiciled in the state, but they have zero authority over ICE enforcement actions. When one parent is removed from the country by federal action, the remaining parent often gains de facto custody without any best-interests hearing under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240.
The legal problem is stark. A custody order requires a judicial finding of the child's best interests. An ICE removal requires only an immigration judge's finding on removability, with no analysis of parental fitness or the child's welfare. The two systems operate on entirely different records and burdens of proof. In 2018, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that roughly 5.1 million U.S. children live with at least one undocumented parent — meaning millions of custody outcomes could theoretically be altered by enforcement decisions made outside any family court.
If a third party — whether a political operative, relative, or new partner — can trigger enforcement against a co-parent, that party effectively rewrites the custody order. New York courts treat this kind of interference seriously under the custodial interference doctrine codified at N.Y. Penal Law § 135.45 and N.Y. Penal Law § 135.50. Whether calling ICE fits within that doctrine is an open question no New York appellate court has squarely answered.
How New York law handles this
New York would analyze this scenario through three doctrines simultaneously. First, subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76, fixes jurisdiction with the child's "home state" — generally where the child lived for 6 consecutive months before the custody filing. If Giovanni lived in New York for that period, New York courts retain jurisdiction even after one parent is deported.
Second, the best-interests analysis under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 requires courts to weigh parental fitness, the primary caretaker's role, the child's expressed preferences (especially for teenagers), and each parent's ability to foster a relationship with the other parent. New York's seminal decision in Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1982), requires a totality-of-the-circumstances review — and a parent's role in triggering the other parent's removal would be directly relevant to the "willingness to foster a relationship" factor.
Third, Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727 (1996), governs relocation — and a forced international relocation caused by deportation is the extreme version of the same doctrine. New York courts may maintain jurisdiction under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76-a (continuing exclusive jurisdiction) even when one parent is abroad, and can order international parenting time, supervised transfers, and bond requirements under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1-a) to prevent abduction risk.
Finally, if evidence shows a parent weaponized law enforcement to gain custody leverage, New York judges can sanction that conduct. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1)(a-1), proof of one parent's interference with the other's parental rights is a heavily weighted factor against the interfering parent.
Practical takeaways
-
Document everything immediately. If you suspect a co-parent is preparing immigration-based leverage, preserve texts, emails, voicemails, and witness accounts in dated folders. New York courts credit contemporaneous documentation over after-the-fact testimony.
-
File for temporary custody before any enforcement action occurs. A standing custody order under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 gives your New York attorney leverage that becomes harder to obtain once a parent is in detention.
-
Retain both a family law attorney and an immigration attorney in parallel. Cross-representation matters because status adjustment under VAWA or U-visa protections (available to victims of certain crimes) can halt removal timelines that would otherwise eclipse the custody docket.
-
Request a UCCJEA jurisdictional finding early. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76, locking in New York as home state prevents forum shopping to Florida or another jurisdiction if detention relocates your co-parent.
-
If the child is a teenager — Giovanni is reportedly 14 — New York courts give substantial weight to the child's stated preferences. Request appointment of an attorney for the child under N.Y. Family Court Act § 249 to ensure the child's voice is heard independently of either parent.
-
Consider an emergency order of protection under N.Y. Family Court Act § 842 if there is evidence of coercive control that includes threats to involve immigration authorities. Several New York judges have treated such threats as a form of domestic abuse since 2019.
FAQs
Can a parent use ICE to win a custody case in New York?
No — New York law treats this as custodial interference. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240, a parent's willingness to foster the other parent's relationship is a core best-interests factor. Judges in Kings and New York counties have since 2018 treated immigration-based threats as coercive conduct that weighs against the threatening parent.
Does New York keep jurisdiction if one parent is deported?
Yes. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76-a (UCCJEA continuing jurisdiction), New York retains exclusive custody authority if the child continues to reside there, even after one parent is removed to another country. Jurisdiction only shifts if the child has lived outside New York for 6+ consecutive months.
What happens to custody if an undocumented parent is detained?
Detention does not automatically terminate parental rights. A New York court must hold a best-interests hearing under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240. In 2023, an estimated 4,500 New York children had a parent in ICE detention, and most retained legal parenting rights through counsel-arranged video visitation and affidavits.
Can a teenager choose which parent to live with in New York?
New York courts give substantial weight to teen preferences but do not make it binding. Under Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1982), courts consider maturity, reasoning, and the child's age — typically giving meaningful weight starting at age 12. A 14-year-old's preference is usually heard through an attorney appointed under N.Y. Family Court Act § 249.
How long does an international custody case take in New York?
International UCCJEA cases in New York typically take 8–18 months to resolve, with expedited hearings available under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76-g for emergency jurisdiction. Hague Convention abduction cases move faster — federal courts must decide within 6 weeks of filing under 22 U.S.C. § 9003.
Need guidance on a New York custody matter?
If you are facing a contested custody case with immigration complications, a New York family law attorney with UCCJEA experience can help you stabilize jurisdiction and protect your parental rights. Browse verified New York attorneys in our directory.
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.