A Lincoln hearing is a private interview a New York judge conducts with a child in a custody or visitation case. It happens in the judge’s chambers, not in open court, and the parents are not allowed inside. Only the judge, the child, the child’s attorney, and a court reporter are present. The transcript is sealed. The point is to let the child speak honestly about their life and preferences without being watched by either parent.
Where the Practice Comes From
The name traces to Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270 (1969), a New York Court of Appeals decision. The mother in that case argued that a judge’s private interview with the children was “secret evidence” and violated her right to confront witnesses. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that in custody disputes “the first concern of the court is and must be the welfare and the interests of the children” and that those interests are “paramount.”1vLex United States. Lincoln v Lincoln A child “already suffering from the trauma of a broken home,” the court said, should not have to publicly describe difficulties with a parent or openly choose between them.2New York State Law Reporting Bureau. Matthew A. v Jennifer A. A private conversation, the court concluded, would be “far more informative and worthwhile than the traditional procedures of the adversary system.”
Since 1969, New York courts have treated these interviews as a standard tool in custody litigation. Appellate courts have reversed custody rulings where a trial judge should have held one and didn’t.
When a Judge Holds One
A Lincoln hearing is not automatic. The decision rests with the trial judge’s discretion. Either parent can ask for one, the Attorney for the Child can request it, or the judge can order it on their own. Courts have described it as “often the preferable course” even when not strictly required.
A judge may decline when the interview would harm the child or when the proceeding is not actually about custody. In Matthew A. v. Jennifer A., a court refused a Lincoln hearing in a contempt proceeding, reasoning that the focus there was the parent’s alleged misconduct and due process rights, not the children’s best interests.2New York State Law Reporting Bureau. Matthew A. v Jennifer A. In the other direction, appellate courts have sent cases back for a Lincoln hearing when a child was old enough and mature enough that the interview was needed to build a proper record.
There is no fixed minimum age. Very young children are rarely interviewed because they cannot meaningfully articulate preferences, but New York judges have discretion across a range of ages when circumstances justify it.
Who Is Actually in the Room
The group is small by design: the judge, the child, the Attorney for the Child, and a court reporter. That’s it. Parents are excluded, and so are their lawyers. The restriction exists so the child can speak without worrying about a parent’s reaction in real time.
The court reporter is there so a verbatim transcript exists for later review, particularly on appeal. Guidelines for Attorneys for Children in the Fourth Department describe the proper setup as “only the AFC, child, judge and court reporter present.”3New York State Courts. Guidelines for Attorneys for Children in the Fourth Department
Parents’ lawyers are not completely cut out. They can submit written questions to the judge before the interview, and the judge decides which, if any, to use.4New York State Courts. T.E.G. v G.T.G. There is no guarantee any will be asked. In T.E.G. v. G.T.G., the court invited each attorney to offer questions for the children, and all three attorneys supported the interview.
How the Interview Goes
Lincoln hearings are conducted “in camera,” meaning in the judge’s private chambers rather than in open court. The setting is informal on purpose. The judge and the Attorney for the Child ask questions in a conversational tone, covering daily routine, school, relationships with each parent, and living preferences. There is no cross-examination and no adversarial back-and-forth.
The interview is not a standalone event. It usually happens during or after the broader fact-finding hearing in the custody case, after the judge already has testimony, reports, and other evidence. The conversation is meant to fill gaps and check whether what the adults said matches the child’s experience. A child describing their actual daily life often surfaces things that formal testimony either sanitized or missed.
What the Child’s Attorney Does
Children in New York Family Court proceedings are entitled to their own lawyer. The Family Court Act states that “counsel is often indispensable to a practical realization of due process of law” for children.5New York State Senate. New York Family Court Act 241 – Findings and Purpose
During a Lincoln hearing, the Attorney for the Child prepares the child beforehand and participates in the questioning. The AFC is expected to know the particular judge’s style and to help the child understand what to expect.3New York State Courts. Guidelines for Attorneys for Children in the Fourth Department
One point parents often misunderstand: the AFC usually does not advocate for whatever the attorney personally thinks is best. In most cases the AFC must follow the child’s expressed wishes, even when the lawyer disagrees. The AFC can depart from that only in narrow circumstances, such as when the child lacks the capacity for knowing, voluntary, and considered judgment, or when following the child’s wishes would create a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm. Even then, if the child asks, the AFC must still tell the court what the child wants.3New York State Courts. Guidelines for Attorneys for Children in the Fourth Department
Will Parents Find Out What the Child Said?
No, not directly. The court reporter records everything, and the resulting transcript is sealed. Parents and their attorneys cannot read it without a specific court order. The sealing exists because, in the words of one court, “children must be protected from having to openly choose between parents or openly divulging intimate details of their respective parent/child relationships.”2New York State Law Reporting Bureau. Matthew A. v Jennifer A.
The reasoning is practical. A child who knows exactly what they said would get back to a parent is unlikely to be candid. Confidentiality is what makes the hearing work.
When the judge later issues a written custody decision, the opinion may note that the child’s statements were considered. Judges are generally careful not to include specifics that would reveal exactly what the child said, since the parents will read the decision. The level of detail varies, but the spirit of the sealed transcript tends to carry into the written order. If the case is appealed, the sealed transcript travels to the appellate court as part of the record. The appellate judges can read it to evaluate the trial court’s decision; the parents still cannot.
How Much Weight the Child’s Preference Carries
A child saying “I want to live with Mom” or “I want to live with Dad” does not end the case. The child’s preference is one factor among many and never controls the outcome by itself. Judges weigh the statements against the child’s age, maturity, and reasoning. A teenager who gives thoughtful reasons for preferring one household carries more influence than a younger child who may be repeating something a parent told them. The closer the child is to 18, the more seriously courts take the stated preference.
Judges also watch for coaching. A child who uses adult vocabulary, repeats legalistic phrases, or mirrors one parent’s exact talking points raises concern. When a judge suspects coaching, it tends to backfire on the parent responsible, because New York courts treat a parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent as a significant factor in custody decisions. A parent caught undermining that relationship may see reduced parenting time or a modified arrangement.
What a Lincoln Hearing Cannot Do
Lincoln hearings belong to custody and visitation cases. They are not used in every family court proceeding. The court in Matthew A. v. Jennifer A. rejected one in a contempt proceeding because the focus was the parent’s conduct and due process, not the child’s best interests.2New York State Law Reporting Bureau. Matthew A. v Jennifer A. Child abuse and neglect proceedings under Article 10 of the Family Court Act have their own procedures and do not use the Lincoln framework.
The hearing also cannot carry a custody decision on its own. A judge cannot decide the case solely on what a child said in chambers. The interview supplements witness testimony, forensic evaluations, school records, and whatever else the parties put in front of the court. A ruling that leans too heavily on the in-camera interview without support from the rest of the record is vulnerable on appeal.