The Hit Directory

New York City, NY – Queens mother Kristy Kiely is formally calling for an independent investigation and public oversight review into how custody order violations, protective order breaches, and related criminal complaints are handled within Queens County.

Kiely asserts that her case reflects broader enforcement gaps that may be affecting families across New York City and New York State.

Over the course of her custody proceedings, Kiely reports documenting thirty-three (33) alleged violations of court-ordered custody and visitation. She states that despite repeated reports, sworn filings, and law enforcement involvement, no sustained criminal prosecution resulted.

Under New York Penal Law, intentional violation of lawful custody orders may constitute Custodial Interference. Violation of a Temporary Order of Protection may constitute Criminal Contempt. False emergency reporting may constitute a criminal offense under Penal Law § 240.50.

Kiely states that in practice, enforcement of these statutes appears inconsistent when applied within ongoing custody litigation.

“When court orders are violated repeatedly without consequence,” Kiely states, “families lose faith that those orders are meaningful.”

On May 1, 2025, the child’s father was arrested and charged with Custodial Interference, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and Criminal Contempt related to alleged violations of a temporary custody and visitation order. Kiely reports that those charges were later dismissed and not prosecuted.

She further states that on December 12, 2025, she was informed by Chief Assistant District Attorney Jennifer L. Naiburg that Family Court and the District Attorney’s Office often work closely on matters involving custody litigation and that repeated custody violations — including the thirty-three documented instances in her case — were not being treated as criminal conduct in practice.

Kiely also states that despite alleged violations of an active Temporary Order of Protection, a full stay-away order was not secured.

She is requesting public clarification of:

• The criteria used to prosecute or decline custodial interference cases
• How coordination between Family Court and the District Attorney’s Office affects charging decisions
• Whether repeated violations of court orders are categorically deprioritized
• The standards applied when charges are dismissed following arrest

Kiely reports that on March 14, 2025, a false emergency report triggered a police response to her residence in an incident she describes as akin to swatting.

On March 17, 2025, a Family Offense Petition requesting criminal review and transfer of the matter to Queens Criminal Court was filed. Kiely states that the matter was not effectuated for transfer and was later acknowledged to her as having been overlooked.

Kiely further states that during communications with the District Attorney’s Office, Assistant District Attorney Sarit A. Perl acknowledged that the March 17, 2025 Family Offense Petition relating to the March 14, 2025 incident had not been addressed and told Kiely that she had “forgotten” about the filing.

Kiely is requesting formal review of how such incidents are screened, tracked, and evaluated for criminal action.

Kiely reports that multiple allegations were made against her to law enforcement and child protective agencies in New York City and Nassau County. Each investigation concluded without substantiated findings of abuse or maltreatment.

She further reports that immediately following the May 1, 2025 arrest, and upon release on May 2, 2025, a report was made to Nassau County Child Protective Services alleging the same accusations from the father’s February and March reports which had already been investigated and determined to be unfounded.

Investigators reportedly determined that the allegation lacked factual basis, including the fact that Kiely had not seen the child since March 16, 2025 due to withheld visitation. The report was ultimately deemed unfounded.

Kiely states that repeated unfounded allegations may consume public resources, influence custody litigation, and contribute to prolonged parent-child separation without accountability.

During June 2024 Family Court proceedings, Kiely states that digital recordings submitted in litigation were challenged by a forensic technology expert, who identified indicators consistent with editing or alteration and account ownership associated with the father. The recordings were not authenticated or admitted into evidence.

She further reports that prosecutors relied heavily on audio recordings in which the child allegedly stated she did not wish to attend visitation.

Kiely states that she raised concerns regarding influence, coaching, and the reliability of such recordings, particularly in the absence of forensic authentication or independent clinical evaluation.

Kiely is calling for clearer evidentiary standards and prosecutorial scrutiny when digital materials or child statements are used to influence custody outcomes.

On October 19, 2025, Kiely submitted a written complaint to Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz requesting criminal review, reinstatement of charges, and internal investigation into the prosecutorial handling of the matter.

The complaint included police reports, criminal report numbers relating to three alleged violations of Kiely’s Temporary Order of Protection, a USB drive containing video footage documenting the March 14, 2025 swatting incident, court transcripts, protective orders, and investigative findings.

Kiely states that the issues raised in that complaint remain unresolved.

Kiely emphasizes that this is not a gender issue.

“There are unfit mothers and unfit fathers. There are protective mothers and protective fathers. Both must be treated equally under the law.”

She states that when children’s statements are accepted without examination of potential coaching or undue influence, litigation may be prolonged and division deepened.

Custody litigation affects thousands of New York families annually. Kiely asserts that inconsistent enforcement may undermine deterrence, increase litigation, and prolong instability for children.

“When enforcement appears selective or unclear,” she states, “families suffer. Oversight is not an attack on institutions — it is how institutions remain accountable.”

Call for Independent Oversight and Structural Reform

Kiely is requesting:

• An independent review of Queens County prosecutorial handling of custodial interference and related cases
• Public transparency regarding enforcement standards
• Legislative oversight hearings examining the intersection between Family Court and criminal enforcement
• Courtroom recording cameras for transparency
• Consideration of jury trial availability in custody proceedings
• Creation of an independent civilian oversight body for Family Court similar to the Civilian Complaint Review Board

“This is not about retaliation,” Kiely states. “It is about whether the systems meant to protect children, safeguard their right to maintain relationships with both fit parents, and enforce court orders are functioning consistently, transparently, and equally.”