Where are Etan Patz's parents now? A look into family’s harrowing journey as court orders new trial for suspect in 1979 case

More than eight years after being sentenced to life imprisonment, the conviction of the man charged with Etan Patz’s murder has been overturned by a federal appeals court. Pedro Hernandez, who was convicted by a jury in a New York City court, will now face a new trial or be released following the ruling on Monday, July 21, 2025. The New York Times reported.

Two years after Hernandez was sentenced, Etan Patz’s parents, Julie and Stanley, relocated to Hawaii. The New York Post confirmed. Per StreetEasy, they sold off their 2,350-square-foot Prince Street loft for $3.75 million in June 2019. There haven’t been any reports of the couple moving elsewhere from Hawaii, where their other son, Ari, resides, according to the Post.

A neighbor of Etan’s parents, Susan Meisel, told the outlet in 2019,

“They are moving on . . . to a beautiful place to share whatever time they have left with their child and their grandchildren.”

Talking about Julie and Stan, Meisel added,

“They waited and waited and never left because God forbid there was something to wait for.”

The neighbor concluded,

“Prince Street is no longer their haven. This is a new chapter that will help them live with their grief. They are very nice people. I just wish them luck.”

The Patzes have stayed away from the public eye for quite a few years following the conviction of Pedro Hernandez. For those unaware, they had lived at the same 113 Prince St. SoHo apartment since their six-year-old child disappeared in May 1979. While Etan Patz was presumed dead in June 2001, his parents didn’t move away until the conviction of Pedro Hernandez.

According to The Independent, Julie and Stanley’s support helped co-found an organization like the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).

Etan Patz’s 1979 disappearance: Hernandez’s murder conviction overturned after appeals court finds jury instructions “clearly wrong” and “prejudicial”

The 2nd Circuit orders that Pedro Hernandez, the SoHo bodega clerk convicted in 2017 of kidnapping and murdering 6-year-old Etan Patz in 1979, should get a new trial. If the DA tries the case again, it would be Hernandez’s third time going on trial https://t.co/Rlm37TeYX8 pic.twitter.com/d0Y7j2iL8S

— Molly Crane-Newman (@molcranenewman) July 21, 2025

According to the facts shared by the appellate court in its 51-page ruling, the decades-old missing child case reopened in 2012. That same year, Pedro Hernandez was apprehended by the authorities after they received a tip about his alleged involvement. The suspect was reportedly diagnosed with multiple disorders and had a relatively low IQ, based on his petition.

Pedro Hernandez was charged with Etan Patz’s murder after he confessed to having lured the kid into a basement when he was heading toward his school bus on May 25, 1979. In his admission, the accused mentioned choking Patz and leaving him in a box in the trash area near the bodega where he worked.

The first trial ended in a mistrial, while the second one concluded with Hernandez being convicted. He received life imprisonment, with the possibility of parole after 25 years.

In 1979, 6-year-old Etan Patz vanished on his way to the bus stop in New York City. He became the first missing child to appear on a milk carton. The case stayed cold for decades. His killer wasn’t caught until 2012. pic.twitter.com/e8B5pFEFCM

— Fascinating (@fasc1nate) July 16, 2025

The appellate court, in its July 2025 ruling, overturned the conviction, stating that Pedro Hernandez should be released or get another trial within a reasonable period. The court also declared,

“We conclude that the state trial court contradicted clearly established federal law and that this error was not harmless.”

The ruling also pointed out a “clearly wrong” and “manifestly prejudicial” instruction that the court gave to the jury during the 2017 trial. It said,

“We agree with the district court that the state trial court’s instruction was clearly wrong under Seibert. But, unlike the district court, we conclude—even under the demanding standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”)—that the error was manifestly prejudicial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the district court to grant the writ conditionally.”

According to The New York Times, Hernandez was charged by the Manhattan district attorney’s office. After the appellate court’s recent order in the accused’s favor, Emily Tuttle, a spokeswoman for the office, said that they are “reviewing the decision.”