A New York Times investigation reported on April 12, 2026 alleges that Italian modeling agent Paolo Zampolli, a longtime associate of Donald and Melania Trump, contacted a senior ICE official to initiate deportation proceedings against his Brazilian ex-partner Amanda Ungaro during their contested New York custody battle over their teenage son. Ungaro was detained, transferred to immigration custody, and deported to Brazil. The allegations directly implicate N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1-c), which prohibits New York courts from considering immigration status as a custody factor.
Key Facts
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| What happened | Brazilian model Amanda Ungaro alleges her ex-partner triggered ICE deportation proceedings during an active NY custody dispute |
| When reported | April 12, 2026 (Daily Beast / New York Times investigation) |
| Where | New York County, Supreme Court (custody case); ICE detention in NY/NJ |
| Who's affected | Amanda Ungaro (deported to Brazil), Paolo Zampolli (Trump ally), their teenage son |
| Key statute | N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1-c) — prohibits immigration status as a custody factor |
| Practical impact | Raises unprecedented questions about federal immigration enforcement weaponized inside state family court |
The reporting, originally surfaced by The Daily Beast and the New York Times, describes a pattern that family law attorneys across New York have warned about for years: a noncitizen parent in a custody dispute being neutralized through federal immigration channels rather than family court rulings. I will not comment on the specific litigation strategy of any party in this active matter, but the legal framework deserves close examination.
Why This Matters Legally
The Ungaro allegations expose a structural conflict between federal immigration authority and state family court jurisdiction. Under federal law, ICE officers possess broad arrest and removal authority pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357, and that authority is not paused by a pending custody case. New York family courts cannot enjoin a federal agency from enforcing immigration law. When a noncitizen parent is removed from the United States, the practical custody outcome shifts dramatically — even if the state court order says nothing about immigration.
This creates a documented loophole. A litigant who tips off ICE during a custody dispute may achieve through deportation what they could not achieve through N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240. New York's 2018 amendment, codified at § 240(1-c), was designed specifically to prevent immigration status from being used as leverage. The statute states that a parent's immigration status, standing alone, shall not be the basis for a custody or visitation determination. The Ungaro allegations test whether that protection means anything when removal happens outside the courthouse.
How New York Law Handles This
New York treats immigration status as legally irrelevant to custody on its face, but the practical reality is more complicated. Three statutes do the heavy lifting.
First, N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1) requires custody decisions to be made in the best interests of the child, considering the totality of circumstances. The 2018 amendment at subsection (1-c) added explicit language that immigration status alone cannot be the determinative factor. Courts applying this provision, including in Matter of Saul C. v. Cecilia A.D., 142 A.D.3d 696 (2nd Dep't 2016), have held that risk of deportation may be considered only when directly relevant to the child's welfare — not as a tiebreaker.
Second, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 76, establishes that the child's home state retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction. If New York issued the custody order, New York keeps jurisdiction even after a parent is deported — meaning a Brazilian court generally cannot modify a New York custody order absent a formal jurisdictional transfer under § 76-a.
Third, N.Y. Family Court Act § 651 gives Family Court concurrent jurisdiction over custody matters and allows emergency relief. A deported parent retains standing to participate in proceedings remotely, and New York courts have authority to issue orders protecting that parent's rights. The Appellate Division has repeatedly held that physical absence from the United States does not extinguish parental rights.
The gap, however, is enforcement. New York courts have no power over ICE personnel. If a tip is made anonymously or through informal channels, there may be no record to subpoena. Even with documentation, a federal Privacy Act claim or Bivens action faces significant hurdles. The result is a remedy gap that family law practitioners have flagged in Bar Association reports dating back to 2019.
Practical Takeaways for New York Parents
- Document everything if you believe immigration enforcement is being used as litigation leverage. Save texts, voicemails, emails, and any third-party communications referencing your status. Under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4518, business records and electronic communications are admissible if properly authenticated.
- Request an immediate protective order under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(3) if you have evidence of coercion. New York Family Court can issue orders prohibiting a party from contacting third parties to harm the other parent's standing in the case.
- Retain dual representation. A family law attorney handles the custody case; a separate immigration attorney handles removal defense. The two practice areas rarely overlap, and timelines move on different tracks. ICE detention hearings can occur within 48 hours, while custody motions typically take 2 to 6 weeks.
- File for emergency temporary custody under N.Y. Family Court Act § 651-a if the other parent is detained or facing removal. Courts can preserve the status quo and prevent unilateral relocation of the child.
- Preserve the child's right to relationship under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1-a). Even after deportation, a parent may seek virtual visitation orders. New York courts have approved video-based parenting time in matters involving deported parents since at least 2014.
- Consider federal claims sparingly. Civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 generally do not reach federal officers. A Bivens claim against ICE officials is theoretically available but extremely narrow after Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022).
Frequently Asked Questions
CTA
If you are facing a New York custody dispute involving immigration concerns, the right legal team can preserve your parental rights even across borders. Browse our directory of vetted New York family law attorneys to find 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.