BLANK

Tag: rights

As a Joint Legal and Physical Custodial Parent, Can I Legally Prevent the Other Parent From Going on a Vacation (Either Out of State or Out of the Country) With Our Child or Children?

Unless a court were to order that a parent was barred from traveling out of state or out of the country with the children on vacation, a joint legal and custodial parent has an unfettered right to travel with the children out of state or out of the country on vacation, even if the other parent objects. Of course, if a parent wanted to travel somewhere that is clearly dangerous for anyone or clearly dangerous or deleterious to the children given their age or other relevant factors, a parent could object to traveling there with the children on that basis, but you’ll notice that the basis of the objection wouldn’t be “I don’t want the children traveling there with you” but an objection based upon placing the children in harm’s way. Otherwise stated, if the other parent simply doesn’t like the idea of you traveling out of state or out of the country with the children, that alone would not be a sufficient basis to prevent the children from traveling there.

Now at the beginning of this post I stated that unless a court were to order that a parent was barred from traveling out of state or out of the country with the children, a joint legal and custodial parent has an unfettered right to travel with the children out of state or out of the country, even if the other parent objects. Such an order would be very hard to come by.

Parents have a constitutional right to travel freely, and thus a constitutional right to travel freely with their children if they have sole or joint custody of those children. For a court’s order barring or restricting travel to survive and appeal and be legally enforceable, the court would have to have very good reasons for restricting a parent’s right to travel with the children, such as a parent having abducted or attempted to abduct the children in the past, that parent’s effort to abscond with and conceal the children from the other parent, whether the parent is a flight risk, the parent’s history of interfering with parent-time or visitation, and failure to provide required notices in advance of travel with the children.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , ,

If One Parent Gets Primary Custody, Does This Mean That He/She Can Make All Decisions Regarding the Kids Without Any Input From the Other Parent?

There are two kinds of child custody, not just one. Those two different kinds are legal custody and physical custody.

Legal custody is the power of a parent to make decisions for a minor child regarding the child’s health and health care, education, moral and religious upbringing, and other matters pertaining to the child’s general welfare.

Physical custody of a child Is defined as that parent’s right to have the child reside physically with that parent.

You hear about the terms “sole custody” and “joint custody”. Parents can be awarded sole legal or joint legal custody of their children. They can be awarded sole physical or joint physical custody of their children. There is also what is known as a “split custody” award.

Another term that is often used for sole custody is primary custody. That is something of a misnomer.

Sole custody in the context of legal custody would mean that one parent and one parent alone has the power to make decisions for the child. Joint legal custody would mean that both parents share the right to make choices pertaining to the child. That stated, however, courts can and often do award parents the ostensible joint legal custody of their children, and yet give one parent the sole and exclusive right to decide in the event the parents cannot reach agreement. If you ask me, that can’t, in intellectual honesty, be joint legal custody, but I digress.

Sometimes Utah courts will divide legal custody between the parents such that one parent may have the right to make all decisions in a particular area. For example, the court could award the mother the right to make all healthcare decisions and award the father the right to make all education decisions for the children. That sort of arrangement would be known as a “split” legal custody award because neither parent has the sole and exclusive power to make all decisions regarding the child, the parents are not awarded joint legal custody such that they must make decisions jointly, but each parent has some soul and exclusive power to make some decisions, though not all decisions, pertaining to the child’s upbringing.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , ,

The Father of My Child Has Visitation Rights Ordered by Court, Yet He Will Be in a Different State During His Visitation Time, but Wants His Aunt to Take Over. Do I Have to Allow His Aunt Visitation While He’s on Vacation?

This is a good question and one that arises frequently in one form or another; a parent either can’t or won’t provide personal care and supervision of the parties’ children his/her scheduled parent-time or custody yet does not want the other parent to care for the children in his/her absence.

Some parents try to pull this stunt because either 1) they are territorial about “my time” with the children and thus can’t stand the idea of the other parent caring for the children during “my time”; or 2) they maliciously want to deny the other parent the opportunity to provide this care for the children. Others try to pull this stunt because they are afraid they will lose the child custody or parent-time they were awarded if they allow the other parent the opportunity to provide care for the children (yet believe that if someone else provides the care that somehow makes retaining custody and parent-time more “secure”). This is wrong, and is something you can take to the court to complain about and seek new court orders to remedy.

But sometimes a parent occasionally wants to leave the children in the care of someone else for perfectly reasonable, even laudable reasons, such as wanting the kids to enjoy time with grandma and grandpa or with the cousins, a sleepover at a friend’s house, and things like that. Clearly, it’s not defensible if it is the rule and not the exception, but there is nothing wrong with this on occasion. Indeed, refusing to be flexible and to allow a parent to do this for your kids is unfair to your kids.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/The-father-of-my-child-has-visitation-rights-ordered-by-court-yet-he-will-be-in-a-different-state-during-his-visitation-time-but-wants-his-aunt-to-take-over-do-I-have-to-allow-his-aunt-visitation-while-he-s-on/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , ,

How does employment effect finances in divorce?

Are Couples in which the husband didn’t have a full-time job had a chance of divorcing the following year, compared to couples in which the husband did have a full-time job? 

In my opinion, given that generally husbands still earn substantially more than wives, the “best” time for a man to divorce, if he must, is—unless he’s incredibly altruistic toward his wife/soon-to-be-ex-wife—when he’s jobless and/or poor. But this principle applies just as well to a wage-earning wife too. Why? 

If ever there may be a silver lining to being jobless and/or poor, it could be when getting divorced. 

Another divorce attorney told me many times, “Good behavior in a marriage is bad behavior in a divorce, and vice versa.” And you’ve heard the phrase, “No good deed goes unpunished.” In many situations that’s all too true. Earning a living is a good example of these principles. 

In a successful, happy marriage, earning a good living helps keep things running like a well-oiled machine. It promotes optimism and good mental and physical health. It reduces stress and worry. It wins the admiration and affection of family members. 

In a dysfunctional, miserable marriage, earning a good living usually (not always, but usually) means, when the divorce dust settles, that the guy or gal who earns more pays more to the ex-spouse. Pays more of what? Marital debt, child support, and alimony. In divorce, earning a good living goes from being a blessing to a curse. It can feel essentially like involuntary servitude because you are ordered to pay whether you want to pay. And it’s not unusual for courts to order the paying spouse to pay more than he/she practicably can. This breeds consistent resentment, depression, discouragement, stress, and worry. But is there gratitude for the payor? Forget it. Child support and alimony are far too often treated as “rights” and entitlements. 

The poor spouse has less (if any) money to pay child support and alimony. And the poorer spouse of the couple has a great argument for receiving money in the form of child support and alimony. The poorer one is, the harder it is for the other spouse and the court to justify any—let alone big—child support and alimony awards. 

Now for those of you contemplating divorce who think this means, “Ah, so I should impoverish myself before I divorce,” shame on you. Many try to game the divorce process this way (and many get away with it), and it’s easy to see what makes it so tempting. Both A) the spouse who earns a lot of money and B) the other spouse who wants to get a lot of money (from child support, alimony, and debt relief), try to fake job loss, demotion, crushing debts and obligations, illness, injury, or disability. If you think this is a brilliant innovation, you’d be wrong. Divorce courts have seen this scheme tried time and again. They see it so often that they expect both spouses to make these claims. They see it so often that they sometimes conclude that one or both spouses is/are lying about income and expenses even when they are not. Can the courts be fooled? Sure, they get fooled a lot, but not always, not even usually. That stated, I know that there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dishonest people who will file for divorce each year and who will try to con the court with the “I’m poor” play. 

Bottom line: being poor (truly poor, not fake poor) is, in many ways, a winning hand in divorce, if you can prove it in the course of your divorce action. Being poor often saves the spouse who would otherwise pay through the nose. Being poor often benefits the spouse who would receive child support, alimony, and debt relief. 

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277  

https://www.quora.com/Are-Couples-in-which-the-husband-didn-t-have-a-full-time-job-had-a-chance-of-divorcing-the-following-year-compared-to-couples-in-which-the-husband-did-have-a-full-time-job/answer/Eric-Johnson-311  

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

What is the best and fastest way to switch judges in a family court?

I will answer this question as it applies in my jurisdiction (Utah).

First, no one has a right simply to choose your judge or choose to change the judge assigned to your case.

One way to get a change of judge is under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 63A. Change of judge as a matter of right, “all parties joined in the action may, by unanimous agreement and without cause, change the judge assigned to the action by filing a notice of change of judge.” The process for doing so is articulated in more detail in Rule 63A.

Another way to disqualify your judge (and thus have a different judge assigned) is under Utah Code Rule 63. Disability or disqualification of a judge. Under Rule 63, a motion to disqualify a judge can be filed. The process for doing so is articulated in more detail in Rule 63.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-and-fastest-way-to-switch-judges-in-a-family-court/answer/Eric-Johnson-311?prompt_topic_bio=1

Tags: , , , , , ,

How does the legal system protect the visitation rights of non-custodial parents?

How? Not very well, generally. 

But before I elaborate, let’s ask and answer this question first: is the legal system designed to protect the visitation (“visitation” is also known as “parent-time”) rights of noncustodial parents? 

The answer to that question is, ostensibly: yes. But as I stated above, regardless of how well the legal system may be designed or may intend to protect the parent-time/visitation rights of noncustodial parents, designs and intentions are meaningless without proper enforcement. 

And just how well are the designed/intended protections of noncustodial parent visitation/parent-time administered and enforced? Terribly, for the most part. 

How so? Some jurisdictions make interfering with the noncustodial parent’s visitation/parent-time a crime. Criminal statutes, however, are of no protection to a noncustodial parent or two that noncustodial parent’s relationship with his/her child if the police won’t issue citations or make arrests for violating the criminal statute and if prosecutors won’t prosecute violations of the criminal statute. 

Virtually all jurisdictions have provisions in their law for punishing violations of visitation/parent-time orders in decrees of divorce and degrees of child custody and parent time. If, however, you are the wronged noncustodial parent (meaning that the custodial parent has flouted the court’s orders and denied/interfered with visitation/parent-time), yet the court does not hold the offending parent accountable by holding him/her in contempt of court and sanctioning him/her for the contemptuous act(s), then contempt of court is not a deterrent. 

Many jurisdictions provide for a parent who has been denied court ordered visitation/parent-time to receive what is known as compensatory or “make-up” time with the children. And that’s sensible. If the other parent denies you a weekend or a holiday with your children, then the court has the power to award you a “make-up” weekend or holiday. Again, however, such concepts and provisions in the law are meaningless when courts don’t enforce them. And many courts won’t. 

Why won’t courts get tough on custodial parents who interfere with and/or deny noncustodial parents there visitation/parent-time? Two main reasons. One, some courts believe that because it’s hard enough on a child to be denied time with one parent, taking time away from the offending parent so that the parent who was denied visitation/parent-time can spend time with the child simply “solves” one problem (denial of time with one parent) by causing another (denial of time with the other parent). Two, some courts just don’t care enough to enforce the laws on the books, and the cost of trying to hold these disobedient judges accountable is usually far too expensive and far too risky (you don’t want to antagonize the judge). 

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277  

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-legal-system-protect-the-visitation-rights-of-non-custodial-parents/answer/Eric-Johnson-311?prompt_topic_bio=1  

Tags: , , , ,

How can you win with the abduction of your own children? I took my children to New Zealand without the permission of the father.

I don’t know the laws of New Zealand, but I can tell you this: morally, you have no right to do that, unless, perhaps, you absconded with the children to prevent their father from killing them or from causing serious and irreparable harm. Now even if you are morally justified in doing so, it may still be against the law in your jurisdiction for you to have acted in such a manner, so keep that in mind.

So if you absconded with the children out of an honest fear for their life or safety (and no, “safety” doesn’t mean your subjective definition created to justify self-serving acts) merely because that’s what you wanted or felt is best (as if the father has no voice in the matter):

  • find out if you had the legal right to do so;
    • even if you did have the legal right to do so, was it fair of you to do so? Fair to the kids? Fair to the father? Would you want to be treated the way you have treated the children and their father by running away with the children and cutting them off from their other parent and cutting their other parent off from them?
    • Is there a way to address your concerns without acting as a law unto yourself?
  • and if you find out that what you’ve done is a crime, don’t double down on your criminal behavior by trying to lie low. Yes, doing the right thing may mean you become a convicted criminal, you may serve time in prison, and if so, you will obviously lose custody of the children. But most courts should have some compassion for you if you admit you know you did wrong and are doing your best to right those wrongs immediately.

And if you absconded with the children merely because that’s what you wanted or felt is best (as if the father has no voice in the matter):

  • shame on you for depriving parent and child of contact and companionship;
  • shame on you for depriving the children of their right to be reared by both parents and to enjoy the love and influence of both of their parents;
  • you violated the Golden Rule. Now go do the right thing. Do as you would be done by.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-win-with-the-abduction-of-your-own-children-I-took-my-children-to-New-Zealand-without-the-permission-of-the-father/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

 

Tags: , , , ,

Should a child whose rights are not protected be held accountable?

If one’s rights are not protected, then one’s rights are being denied. And one whose rights are not protected cannot, in one sense, be held accountable/responsible for his/her exercise of those rights, if for no other reason than that one cannot be held responsible for the wrongful exercise of rights that are denied, nor should one feel “irresponsible” for exercising or trying to exercise his/her rights that are being denied. On the other hand, just because one’s rights are not being protected and/or are being denied does not mean that one is free to try to exercise his/her rights irresponsibly. If the government is denying your rights or some of your rights or denying you of your rights sometimes, that doesn’t entitle you to exercise or try to exercise your rights in an irresponsible manner. It may, however, entitle you (perhaps even obligate you) to overthrow the bad government. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution  

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277  

https://www.quora.com/Should-a-child-whose-rights-are-not-protected-be-held-accountable/answer/Eric-Johnson-311?prompt_topic_bio=1  

Tags: , , , , ,

Can a divorced spouse claim rights to a previous primary residence?

Can a divorced spouse claim rights to a previous primary residence?

A court can, in exceptional circumstances, award a spouse some or all of your premarital and separate property that is clearly not a marital asset. In the jurisdiction where I practice family law (Utah), the rule in caselaw is:

Dunn v. Dunn, 802 P.2d 1314 (Utah Ct.App. 1990):

The general rule is that equity requires that each party retain the separate property he or she brought into the marriage, including any appreciation of the separate property. Burt v. Burt, 799 P.2d 1166, 1168 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (separate property, in this case inherited property, includes “its appreciated value” during the marriage). Exceptions to this general rule include whether the property has been commingled, whether the other spouse has by his or her efforts augmented, maintained, or protected the separate property, and whether the distribution achieves a fair, just, and equitable result. Id.; Noble v. Noble, 761 P.2d 1369, 1373 (Utah 1988).

Elman v. Elman, 245 P.3d 176 (Utah Ct.App. 2002):

In distributing property in divorce proceedings, trial courts are first required to properly categorize the parties’ property as marital or separate. See, e.g., Kelley v. Kelley, 2000 UT App 236,¶ 24, 9 P.3d 171. Generally, trial courts are also required to award premarital property, and appreciation on that property, to the spouse who brought the property into the marriage. See Dunn v. Dunn, 802 P.2d 1314, 1320 (Utah Ct.App.1990); see also Mortensen v. Mortensen, 760 P.2d 304, 308 (Utah 1988).

6¶ 19 However, separate property is not “totally beyond [a] court’s reach in an equitable property division.” Burt v. Burt, 799 P.2d 1166, 1169 (Utah Ct.App.1990). The court may award the separate property of one spouse to the other spouse in “ ‘extraordinary situations where equity so demands.’ ” Id. (quoting Mortensen, 760 P.2d at 308); see also Rappleye v. Rappleye, 855 P.2d 260, 263 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (“ ‘Exceptions to this general rule include whether … the distribution achieves a fair, just, and equitable result.’ ” (quoting Dunn, 802 P.2d at 1320)).

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-divorced-spouse-claim-rights-to-a-previous-primary-residence/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can a divorced spouse claim rights to a premarital primary residence?

Can a divorced spouse claim rights to a premarital primary residence?

A court can, in exceptional circumstances, award a spouse some or all of your premarital and separate property that is clearly not a marital asset. In the jurisdiction where I practice family law (Utah), the rule in caselaw is:

Dunn v. Dunn, 802 P.2d 1314 (Utah Ct.App. 1990):

The general rule is that equity requires that each party retain the separate property he or she brought into the marriage, including any appreciation of the separate property. Burt v. Burt, 799 P.2d 1166, 1168 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (separate property, in this case inherited property, includes “its appreciated value” during the marriage). Exceptions to this general rule include whether the property has been commingled, whether the other spouse has by his or her efforts augmented, maintained, or protected the separate property, and whether the distribution achieves a fair, just, and equitable result. Id.; Noble v. Noble, 761 P.2d 1369, 1373 (Utah 1988).

Elman v. Elman, 245 P.3d 176 (Utah Ct.App. 2002):

In distributing property in divorce proceedings, trial courts are first required to properly categorize the parties’ property as marital or separate. See, e.g., Kelley v. Kelley, 2000 UT App 236,¶ 24, 9 P.3d 171. Generally, trial courts are also required to award premarital property, and appreciation on that property, to the spouse who brought the property into the marriage. See Dunn v. Dunn, 802 P.2d 1314, 1320 (Utah Ct.App.1990); see also Mortensen v. Mortensen, 760 P.2d 304, 308 (Utah 1988).

6¶ 19 However, separate property is not “totally beyond [a] court’s reach in an equitable property division.” Burt v. Burt, 799 P.2d 1166, 1169 (Utah Ct.App.1990). The court may award the separate property of one spouse to the other spouse in “ ‘extraordinary situations where equity so demands.’ ” Id. (quoting Mortensen, 760 P.2d at 308); see also Rappleye v. Rappleye, 855 P.2d 260, 263 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (“ ‘Exceptions to this general rule include whether … the distribution achieves a fair, just, and equitable result.’ ” (quoting Dunn, 802 P.2d at 1320)).

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-divorced-spouse-claim-rights-to-a-previous-primary-residence/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Married a short time. He demands discovery going back years. Can he?

Married a short time. He demands discovery going back years. Can he?

Married 16 months. He became abusive almost immediately after. I filed for divorce. He and his attorney is requesting bank statements and my previous divorce information -real estate sales, bankruptcy, etc. from my last marriage prior to this marriage. Can They? They may be well within their rights to seek this kind of information, if the reason he and his attorney are doing so because you are seeking alimony. Things like your bank statements, real estate sales, and bankruptcy documents provide information as to your earning capacity, how capable you are of supporting yourself, and lifestyle costs—that’s all highly relevant and thus clearly discoverable information on the issue of alimony. If you are concerned that your husband and his attorney are engaging in irrelevant, burdensome, harassing, abusive discovery tactics, get your own attorney to find out, and if your attorney honestly believes the discovery is inappropriate/unnecessary, your attorney can ask the court to review the matter to see if the court agrees. If the court agrees, it can bar your husband and attorney from engaging in that kind of thing.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Married16-months-He-became-abusive-almost-immediately-after-I-filed-for-divorce-His-attorney-is-requesting-bank-statements-and-my-prior-divorce-information-real-estate-sales-bankruptcy-etc-from-my-last-marriage/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why does someone need an attorney when they can just defend themselves in court?

Why does someone need an attorney when they can just defend themselves in court (pro se)?

Why does someone need an attorney when they can just defend themselves in court?

It really depends on how you define “need” here.

First, understand that no litigant (except a litigant in certain circumstances who is determined to be mentally incapacitated or disabled, in which case the court may appoint an attorney for such a litigant) is required or can be forced to have be represented by an attorney.

This means you cannot be forced to hire an attorney, you cannot be forced to have an attorney appointed for you in criminal cases, even if you qualify for an attorney to be appointed for you.

So, there is no legal mandate that you be represented by an attorney, no “need” to be represented by an attorney in that sense. You won’t be arrested or fined for not being represented by an attorney.

So, from the foregoing we see that you have the absolute right (with the exception of disability/incapacity) to represent yourself in court (that’s known as proceeding “pro se”, which is Latin for “for oneself”).

If, however, prevailing in the litigation is your sole or primary objective, and if you are not well-versed/skilled/confident regarding the law and court procedures, you may determine that you cannot win without an attorney. In that respect, you may determine that you “need” an attorney. In this sense, most people need an attorney. You may have heard the old saw, “A man who represents himself, has a fool for a client.” Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have put it this way: “He who serves as his own counsel has a fool for a lawyer and a jackass for a client.” The reason this is true is because the legal system is not as simple, as non-dysfunctional (sorry, I know that’s a clunky term, but I cannot think of a clearer way to make my point, or as fair as you believe or want to believe. A lawyer is not only helpful for his/her knowledge of the law and court procedures, but also for his/her experience and ability to guide you down the dark, twisted, uphill, rocky, often counterintuitive and dangerous path that is the legal system.

If the stakes are such that you don’t mind bearing the consequences of losing the case (in other words, you can afford to pay and don’t mind paying the fine(s) and/or don’t mind doing the time in jail/prison), then it’s likely you don’t “need” an attorney; otherwise, a prudent litigant needs an attorney.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-someone-need-an-attorney-when-they-can-just-defend-themselves-in-court/answer/Eric-Johnson-311?prompt_topic_bio=1

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If a mother served 10 years in prison, what rights does she have on release?

If a mother who is sentenced to 10 years in prison leaves her children to be raised by their grandmother, has she a right to demand they live with her when she is released?

Can the mother demand the children return to live with her? Yes. She can make any demands she wants. That doesn’t mean that the grandparents will necessarily accede to those demands.

Does the mother have the right to demand the children return to live with her after her release from prison? Yes, she has “the right” to make such a demand. They are, as a matter of law, her children, not the grandparents’ children, after all. Unless the grandparents petition the court to be made the children’s legal guardians or petition the court to adopt the children (and thus terminate the mother’s parental rights), the mother has the right to the custody and care of her children. And in a situation where the mother has been away from the children, unable to provide them with personal care and attention for a period of 10 years, if the grandparents were to petition for guardianship or adoption, their odds of prevailing are quite high.

Now will the children submissively (let alone willingly) agree to leave the people who have cared for them and to whom they’ve likely formed a strong, loving bond to go live with a woman they might barely know, given that mother’s been out of the picture and literally out of their lives for 10 years? Probably not. So even though the mother has the legal right to custody of the children after being released from prison, if the children refused to leave their grandparents’ home to go live with their mother, there is little the police can do. The grandparents could not be arrested for kidnapping because they are not holding the children against their wills.

https://www.quora.com/If-a-mother-who-is-sentenced-to-10-years-in-prison-leaves-her-children-to-be-raised-by-their-grandmother-has-she-a-right-to-demand-they-live-with-her-when-she-is-released/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , ,

How does a “baby prenup” work and is it effective?

For others reading this answer to your question who do not know what a “baby prenup” is, let me first describe it:

What a “baby prenup” is not

A “baby prenup” is not, as the name might connote, a small or truncated prenuptial agreement. “Baby prenup” is something of a misnomer. A real prenuptial agreement is an agreement that an engaged couple enters into before marriage, or an agreement that a newly wed couple might consider preparing. Why? To anticipate and resolve in advance potential conflicts over property and other issues that could arise in the event of a divorce.

What “baby prenup” is

What “baby prenup” is is an agreement between a husband and his wife* (who may be pregnant or who, with her husband, hopes to have a baby in the future with her husband) that anticipates and resolves in advance potential conflicts over what the parent’s joint and individual parental duties and responsibilities of care for the future child will be. Obviously, the intent of a baby prenup is to 1) facilitate communication between the potential parents and thus avoid and prevent disputes between the husband and wife when they become parents; and 2) ensure that the potential parents make sufficient plans for the successful care and nurturing of their child, if and when one is born to them.

Is a “baby prenup” a good idea?

Not really. I feel that a “baby prenup” cheapens both the joys and the burdens of parenthood by treating pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood in a legalistic manner.

A couple who wants to have a child can do everything that a baby prenup is designed to do without actually having to draft or sign a contract. If a couple is not mature enough to understand that once they have a baby they are both responsible for the care and rearing of the child (in different and complementary ways) they brought into the world, it is highly doubtful that a written contract would change or prevent anything for the better. Indeed, if you believe that the person with whom you would like to have a child cannot be trusted to do, and would not, in the absence of a written contractual obligation, do all he or she can reasonably be expected to do for that child, that is surely someone you should not have a child with and rear together.

——————-

*or a boyfriend and girlfriend, girlfriend and girlfriend, boyfriend and boyfriend, wife and her wife or a husband and his husband, as the case may be.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-baby-prenup-work-and-is-it-effective/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Click to listen highlighted text!