If a couple pre-drafted a *non binding letter* stating opinions on custody do you believe it would be admissible?
<p>-I will get an attorney don't need to make the recommendation again</p>

<p>-I understand that prenups/postnups can't negotiate custody (best interests of child)</p>

<p>-But lets say a couple drafts a letter that makes clear that its not a contract, not binding, but is intended to be admissible as evidence* on the issue of custody and what is in the child's best interests. It would talk about our views of custody when our relationship was peaceful (and not pitted against each other). Things like our views of both of us being capable parents, personal belief that joint custody is in the best interests of child or if we can't work together that even split legal custody would be our preference, etc.</p>

<p>*****I'm curious whether you believe a family judge would allow such a letter to be admissible as evidence and whether that would play any baring on their decisions (lets assume that once the day came one of the parents were no longer in agreement with the letter). I realize that the best interests of the children is the standard, but would a judge be swayed by a prior written opinion on the best interests from the child's own parents?**</p>

<p>Would resigning the letter every ~5 years (and having multiple copies as evidence) be a big help or a little help?</p>

<p>Admissibility is one thing, enforcement is another.</p>

<p>My observations, which are more detailed than casual, is that Family Courts are a different breed, and more than most any other court, "they do what they want."</p>

<p>I have associates who had agreed to stipulations, detailing how a child might be handled, only to have a family court decide at some point to implement some completely different plan, and in doing so run against what both parents were interested in doing.</p>

<p>Prenuptial agreements appear to be meaningless, as this is not about the assets of the couple, it is about the state's interest in the child.  Even then, the courts seem to act in manners which appear to not be in the best interests of the child (and sometimes even say so.)</p>

<p>Back to your question, would an agreement be admissible?   Yes.</p>

<p>Does it mean much?  In my opinion, and based upon the preponderance of evidence, no.</p>

<p>Do whatever you have to do to stay out of family court.  Being married doesn't matter.  Working together for 21 years does.</p>

<p>In the future, you should state the jurisdiction you are in.  It does change the answer, but in this case only subtlety. </p>

<p>In a custody case, the judge is charged with determining the "best interests of the child" and pre-dispute agreements between parents are not legally binding.</p>

<p>A judge has broad discretion to consider almost any kind of evidence pertinent to its broad mandate, and to decide what is and isn't relevant in a case. But, such a writing is only relevant to the extent that it informs what is in the best interests of the children. So, even if it is admissible (and it might be), it probably wouldn't be given much weight.</p>

<p>Even if the parties mutually agree in open court regarding parenting time and parental decision making, that decision isn't binding on the judge, although, in practice, it would almost always be honored absent a truly glaring and obvious problem with their mutual agreement (e.g. a joint agreement to place the child with a previously convicted human trafficker rather than with either parent).</p>

<p>A judge in a custody case has no mandate or obligation or reason to consider the reasonable expectations of the parents concerning how custody matters will be resolved, and the desires of the parents are only tangentially and indirectly relevant.</p>

<p>On the other hand, judges in custody matters often seek to maintain the pre-separation status quo out of the belief that children benefit from continuity with their prior lives, both in terms of visitation arrangements and in terms of major parental decision-making.</p>

<p>For example, if a child has gone to the same school all of his life, the judge is likely to see that as relevant when deciding upon which school the child should attend going forward, even if both parents have suggested that a different school would be better if they split up in past signed letters.</p>

<p>Past actions are going to speak much more loudly than past words.</p>

family-law divorce children