50-state evidence matrix

Child-related limits in prenups

Catalogued authorities concerning child-support or child-related limits on premarital agreements.

49 states have 75 separately catalogued authority records for this topic. 1 states show a visible coverage gap.

50states shown

49with evidence records

75matching authorities

1visible gaps

Manual editorial field guide

Child-related language requires disciplined restraint. A prenup can reveal the parties’ expectations, but the document should not be presented as conclusively fixing support, custody, parenting, or another decision that governing law reserves for later facts and review.

449 manually authored words · evidence tables continue below

Locate direct and indirect child terms

Search not only for ‘child support’ but also for custody, parenting time, education, religion, residence, fertility treatment, childcare, health insurance, special needs, and expenses. Some provisions are explicit commands; others work indirectly by allocating housing, income, or support in a way that affects a child. Quote each clause and identify the triggering scenario.

Do not label every family-related aspiration unlawful. Some language may be precatory, some may address obligations between adults, and some may be subject to later review. The evidence report should identify the issue and linked authority without substituting a categorical answer for legal analysis.

Separate present drafting from future facts

At signing, the parties may not know whether they will have children, where they will live, what a child will need, or what their resources will be. Years later, a court or agency may have responsibilities that the private agreement cannot eliminate. This temporal mismatch is why child-related provisions deserve a conspicuous caution label.

For an existing dispute, collect current facts separately from the old negotiation file. The agreement is one piece of evidence, not a complete account of a child’s circumstances. For a draft, use the clause as a prompt to clarify adult financial responsibilities while avoiding promises that imply certainty about a future child-related ruling.

Explain the boundary in plain language

Users should be told exactly what the system can do: find the clause, show which state packages catalogue a child-support limit, link the authority, and suggest records to collect. It cannot decide custody, calculate a binding obligation, or tell a parent to rely on the provision.

That boundary is not a disclaimer pasted after the answer. It is part of the analysis. A strong report avoids definitive verbs, preserves the child’s current facts, and directs the reader to the relevant public authority or professional when a real decision is pending.

Questions for the document

What to ask before drawing a conclusion

Does the agreement directly or indirectly attempt to fix a child-related outcome?
Is the language an aspiration, an adult reimbursement promise, or a purported limit on future authority?
What current facts about the child and parents are absent from the historical agreement?
Which state source identifies the boundary, and has later authority been checked?

Outside evidence

What the agreement cannot prove alone

Every clause mentioning children, parenting, education, health, residence, or related expenses
Current orders, agency calculations, parenting plans, and records of the child’s present needs
Income, insurance, childcare, educational, and special-needs records
Negotiation drafts showing whether the term was intended as binding, aspirational, or allocative between adults

State	Coverage	Citations and scoped summaries	Next step
Alabama (AL) al-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Ex parte Tabor, 897 So. 2d 115 (Ala. 2002) A child's right to support is inherent and cannot be permanently waived by the parents; courts retain authority to impose or modify support under governing law.	Open AL checklist →
Alaska (AK) ak-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Alaska Stat. § 34.77.090(c) A community property agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support. Nix v. Nix, 855 P.2d 1332 (Alaska 1993); Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 No private child-support waiver is valid without judicial scrutiny under Civil Rule 90.3, and parents may not contract around the child's right or the court's guideline and modification duties. Dirkes v. Dirkes, 502 P.3d 1115 (Alaska 2022) (Opinion No. 7575) Trial courts, not parents, are the ultimate custody decision makers and are not bound by private agreements; current best-interests law controls.	Open AK checklist →
Arizona (AZ) az-2026-07-20.3	1 source	A.R.S. § 25-203(B) An Arizona premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open AZ checklist →
Arkansas (AR) ar-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-403(b) A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open AR checklist →
California (CA) ca-2026-07-18.3	1 source	Cal. Fam. Code § 1612(b) A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open CA checklist →
Colorado (CO) co-2026-07-22.3	1 source	C.R.S. § 14-2-310 A term may not adversely affect child support, and custodial-responsibility terms do not bind the court.	Open CO checklist →
Connecticut (CT) ct-2026-07-21.3	1 source	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36d(c) A Connecticut premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support, and child care, custody, visitation, and other child-affecting provisions remain subject to judicial review and modification.	Open CT checklist →
Delaware (DE) de-2026-07-21.3	1 source	13 Del. C. § 323(b) A Delaware premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open DE checklist →
Florida (FL) fl-2026-07-18.3	1 source	Fla. Stat. § 61.079(4)(b) A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open FL checklist →
Georgia (GA) ga-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Swanson v. Swanson, 276 Ga. 566, 580 S.E.2d 526 (2003) A child's right to support cannot be waived by the parents, so a private agreement cannot conclusively eliminate that right. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3 Custody and parenting determinations remain subject to the court's statutory best-interests analysis rather than becoming automatically binding through a premarital term.	Open GA checklist →
Hawaii (HI) hi-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-3(b) A Hawaii premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open HI checklist →
Idaho (ID) id-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Idaho Code § 32-923(2) An Idaho premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support. Kelly v. Kelly, 171 Idaho 27, 518 P.3d 326 (2022) Kelly held that contractual provisions barring attorney fees and costs for issues concerning child custody, visitation, and support violate Idaho public policy, while separately applying the agreement's text to disputed property.	Open ID checklist →
Illinois (IL) il-2026-07-18.3	1 source	750 ILCS 10/4(b) A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open IL checklist →
Indiana (IN) in-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Ind. Code § 31-11-3-5(b) An Indiana premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open IN checklist →
Iowa (IA) ia-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Iowa Code § 596.5(2) (2026) An Iowa premarital agreement may not adversely affect the right of a spouse or child to support.	Open IA checklist →
Kansas (KS) ks-2026-07-22.3	1 source	K.S.A. § 23-2404(b) A Kansas premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open KS checklist →
Kentucky (KY) ky-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 403.211–.2122 Current guideline amounts are a rebuttable presumption; any deviation requires statutory grounds and court findings, and a parental agreement alone cannot absolutely waive the support obligation. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.270 A court must determine custody under the child's best interests and current statutory presumptions and factors, so a premarital custody allocation cannot bind the future court. Smith v. Smith, No. 2000-CA-001069-MR (Ky. Ct. App. 2001); Whicker v. Whicker, 711 S.W.2d 857 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986) A parent's obligation to support a child may not be absolutely waived by private contract; any different amount remains subject to the statutes, proof, and court review.	Open KY checklist →
Louisiana (LA) la-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	La. Civ. Code art. 131 In divorce proceedings the court must award custody according to the child's best interest, so a premarital custody allocation cannot bind the future court. La. R.S. 9:315.1 The child-support guidelines presumptively supply the proper amount; a deviation requires court review, statutory grounds, reasons, and attention to the child's best interest.	Open LA checklist →
Maine (ME) me-2026-07-22.3	1 source	19-A M.R.S. § 604(2) (2025) A Maine premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open ME checklist →
Maryland (MD) md-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Md. Code, Fam. Law § 8-103(a) A court may modify any agreement term concerning a minor child's care, custody, education, or support when modification serves the child's best interests. Md. Code, Fam. Law § 12-202 Courts must use Maryland's child-support guidelines, with a rebuttable presumption and specific findings for a deviation that address the child's best interests.	Open MD checklist →
Massachusetts (MA) ma-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 28 Courts retain authority over custody, care, maintenance, and education of minor children under child-focused standards and continuing modification power. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 28 Child-support orders follow current law and the guideline presumption, subject to lawful deviation findings rather than a prospective private waiver. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119A, § 13 A postjudgment child-support agreement cannot bar modification without statutory findings, including guideline consistency and the child's best interests.	Open MA checklist →
Michigan (MI) mi-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	MCL 552.605 Courts apply the child-support formula and may deviate only with required findings; the parties' agreement does not eliminate those requirements. MCL 722.23 Michigan's statutory best-interest factors govern child-custody determinations and cannot be conclusively fixed in a premarital agreement.	Open MI checklist →
Minnesota (MN) mn-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 Custody and parenting time require current best-interest findings on all relevant statutory factors. Minn. Stat. § 518A.35 The child-support guideline is a rebuttable presumption in proceedings establishing or modifying support, subject to approved agreements and lawful deviation rules.	Open MN checklist →
Mississippi (MS) ms-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 2003); Miss. Code tit. 93 Private property and alimony arrangements do not eliminate child-support obligations, which remain governed by current statute and chancery review. Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983), applied in May v. Brown, 2023-CA-00624-COA (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) Custody decisions require a current best-interest analysis under the Albright factors rather than conclusive advance private allocation.	Open MS checklist →
Missouri (MO) mo-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.375 A court must decide custody under current statutory best-interest requirements and required findings rather than treat an advance private allocation as conclusive. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.340 Child-support duties and duration remain governed by current Missouri statute and judicial review despite a private financial agreement.	Open MO checklist →
Montana (MT) mt-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Mont. Code Ann. § 40-2-605(2) A Montana premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open MT checklist →
Nebraska (NE) ne-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-1004(2) A Nebraska premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open NE checklist →
Nevada (NV) nv-2026-07-22.3	1 source	NRS 123A.050(2) A Nevada premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open NV checklist →
New Hampshire (NH) nh-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 460:2-a No otherwise enforceable antenuptial contract may contain a term attempting to abrogate the statutory or common-law rights of minor children of the contemplated marriage. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 458-C:1 New Hampshire's guidelines are intended to establish and enforce parental support obligations based on current statutory policy. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 461-A:6 Parental-rights and responsibilities determinations must follow the child's current best interests under section 461-A:6.	Open NH checklist →
New Jersey (NJ) nj-2026-07-22.3	1 source	N.J. Stat. § 37:2-35 A New Jersey premarital or pre-civil-union agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open NJ checklist →
New Mexico (NM) nm-2026-07-22.3	1 source	N.M. Stat. § 40-3A-4(B) A New Mexico premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support or a party's right to child custody or visitation.	Open NM checklist →
New York (NY) ny-2026-07-18.3	1 source	N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 236(B)(3)(4); § 240 Child custody, care, education, and maintenance terms remain subject to section 240 and court review.	Open NY checklist →
North Carolina (NC) nc-2026-07-22.3	1 source	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52B-4(b) A North Carolina premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open NC checklist →
North Dakota (ND) nd-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	N.D.C.C. § 14-03.2-09(2) North Dakota makes terms unenforceable to the extent they adversely affect child support, restrict domestic-violence remedies, modify statutory dissolution grounds, or penalize initiation of dissolution proceedings. N.D.C.C. § 14-03.2-09(1), (3) A term defining the parties' rights or duties concerning parental rights and responsibilities is not binding on a North Dakota court.	Open ND checklist →
Ohio (OH) oh-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.04 A court must allocate parental rights and responsibilities under the child's current best interests rather than enforce an advance private custody allocation conclusively. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 3119.22–.23 A deviation from guideline support requires statutory factors, best-interest findings, and journalized reasons; parents cannot privately eliminate the court's duties.	Open OH checklist →
Oklahoma (OK) ok-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 109 Custody must be decided under the child's current physical, mental, and moral best interests, not conclusively predetermined by a premarital term. Thrash v. Thrash, 1991 OK 32, 809 P.2d 665; Okla. Stat. tit. 43, §§ 118–120 Parents' agreements do not eliminate the court's continuing authority and statutory duties to set or modify minor-child support based on needs, welfare, and current law.	Open OK checklist →
Oregon (OR) or-2026-07-22.3	1 source	ORS 108.710(2) An Oregon premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open OR checklist →
Pennsylvania (PA) pa-2026-07-22.3	1 source	23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(b) A provision concerning child support, visitation, or custody remains subject to court modification upon changed circumstances.	Open PA checklist →
Rhode Island (RI) ri-2026-07-22.3	1 source	R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-17-3(b) A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open RI checklist →
South Carolina (SC) sc-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	S.C. Code Ann. §§ 63-15-30, 63-15-40, 63-15-240 Custody is governed by the child's current best interests and statutory factors, not predetermined by a premarital term. S.C. Code Ann. § 63-17-470(A); S.C. Code Regs. 114-4710 A support proceeding applies a rebuttable guideline presumption; a premarital term cannot conclusively control a future award.	Open SC checklist →
South Dakota (SD) sd-2026-07-22.3	1 source	S.D. Codified Laws § 25-2-18(b) A South Dakota premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open SD checklist →
Tennessee (TN) tn-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106; 2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 683 Custody remains governed by current best interests; Public Chapter 683, effective July 1, 2026, adds consideration of meaningful parental participation. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-02-04; Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e) Tennessee tribunals apply income-shares guidelines as a rebuttable presumption, so a premarital term cannot conclusively waive future child support.	Open TN checklist →
Texas (TX) tx-2026-07-18.3	1 source	Tex. Fam. Code § 4.003(b) A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.	Open TX checklist →
Utah (UT) ut-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Utah Code § 81-3-203(2) A Utah premarital agreement may not affect a child's rights to support, health and medical provider expenses, medical insurance, or child-care coverage.	Open UT checklist →
Vermont (VT) vt-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	15 V.S.A. §§ 665, 668 Parental rights and responsibilities are governed by current best interests and remain modifiable under statutory standards even when based on agreement. 15 V.S.A. §§ 650, 655–656, 660 The court reviews agreed support against the statutory obligation, and support remains modifiable under section 660.	Open VT checklist →
Virginia (VA) va-2026-07-21.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open VA checklist →
Washington (WA) wa-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997) A trial court is not bound by parenting-plan provisions in a premarital agreement; current statutory child interests control. RCW 26.09.100; chapter 26.19 RCW Courts order child support under chapter 26.19 and may modify it; a premarital waiver cannot conclusively control.	Open WA checklist →
West Virginia (WV) wv-2026-07-23.5	2 sources	W. Va. Code §§ 48-1A-301(b), 48-1A-701(a)(1) A premarital term may not adversely affect a child's right to support. W. Va. Code § 48-1A-701(b) A premarital term defining custodial rights or duties is not binding on the court.	Open WV checklist →
Wisconsin (WI) wi-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Wis. Stat. § 766.58(2) A marital-property agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support. Wis. Stat. §§ 767.41, 767.511 Custody and placement turn on current statutory best interests, while support is judicially determined under the percentage standard and statutory factors.	Open WI checklist →
Wyoming (WY) wy-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Combs v. Sherry-Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 55–56 (Wyo. 1993) Parents cannot contract away a minor child's right to adequate support even when their agreement is otherwise valid between them. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-2-201, 20-2-302 to -307 Custody turns on current best interests, while all support orders use current presumptive guidelines subject to statutory deviation and modification rules.	Open WY checklist →

Matrix and list placement describes the records in PrenupsAI's current evidence packages. It does not rank legal strictness, predict enforceability, or mean that an unlisted state has no applicable rule. Open the cited sources to inspect the underlying authority.