New York Assembly Bill A10697

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/20/26
• Refer: 3/20/26

Caption

Prohibits the consideration of evidence that either parent has ever obtained or attempted to obtain reproductive health services relating to the termination of a pregnancy in certain legal proceedings

Summary

A10697 would amend New York’s Domestic Relations Law to bar courts from considering evidence that a parent has ever obtained or attempted to obtain reproductive health services when deciding child custody or visitation matters. The bill defines reproductive health services broadly to include medical, surgical, counseling, and referral services related to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy and the termination of a pregnancy. The bill makes this change in two custody-related provisions: section 70, which governs custody determinations on habeas corpus applications, and section 240, which governs custody and visitation in annulment, separation, divorce, and related proceedings. In both places, the court would still be required to decide based on the child’s best interests, but it could not use a parent’s past efforts to obtain reproductive health care as evidence in that analysis. The bill does not alter the existing statutory framework for considering domestic violence, child abuse, neglect, or other factors relevant to custody and visitation.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would directly amend the Domestic Relations Law by adding an evidentiary exclusion in custody and visitation proceedings. It would limit what facts judges may consider when applying the best-interest-of-the-child standard, specifically preventing the use of a parent’s reproductive health care history as a factor. The practical effect would be to protect parents from having pregnancy-related medical decisions or attempts to obtain such care used against them in family court custody disputes.

Sentiment

There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history available with the bill materials, so no formal floor or committee sentiment can be measured from the record provided. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a privacy and anti-discrimination protection in family court, suggesting support from advocates concerned about reproductive autonomy. At the same time, because it changes what evidence may be considered in custody cases, it could draw scrutiny from those who want courts to have broad discretion in evaluating parental fitness and the child’s best interests.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely whether a parent’s efforts to obtain reproductive health services, including abortion-related care, should ever be relevant in custody or visitation disputes. Supporters would argue that such evidence is irrelevant to parenting ability and should not be used to penalize reproductive decision-making. Opponents may argue that the bill could restrict judicial discretion or prevent consideration of facts they believe might bear on a child’s welfare in some cases. The bill expressly preserves consideration of domestic violence, abuse, and neglect, which may reduce but not eliminate concerns about how the best-interest standard would be applied.