Terms that try to predetermine child-related outcomes

Questions for the document

What to ask before drawing a conclusion

• What child-related result does the clause appear to control?
• Is it binding language or an adult allocation?
• What current facts are absent from the document?
• Which current order or public process applies?

Outside evidence

What the agreement cannot prove alone

• All child-related clauses
• Current orders and agency records
• Income, care, education, health, and insurance evidence
• Draft history showing the intended function of the term

Alabama

• 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.

Alaska

• 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.

Arizona

• A.R.S. § 25-203(B) · An Arizona premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Arkansas

• Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-403(b) · A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

California

• Cal. Fam. Code § 1612(b) · A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Colorado

• C.R.S. § 14-2-310 · A term may not adversely affect child support, and custodial-responsibility terms do not bind the court.

Connecticut

• 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.

Delaware

• 13 Del. C. § 323(b) · A Delaware premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Florida

• Fla. Stat. § 61.079(4)(b) · A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Georgia

• 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.

Hawaii

• Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-3(b) · A Hawaii premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Idaho

• 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.

Illinois

• 750 ILCS 10/4(b) · A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Indiana

• Ind. Code § 31-11-3-5(b) · An Indiana premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Iowa

• Iowa Code § 596.5(2) (2026) · An Iowa premarital agreement may not adversely affect the right of a spouse or child to support.

Kansas

• K.S.A. § 23-2404(b) · A Kansas premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Kentucky

• 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.

Louisiana

• 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.

Maine

• 19-A M.R.S. § 604(2) (2025) · A Maine premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Maryland

• 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.

Massachusetts

• 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.

Michigan

• 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.

Minnesota

• 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.

Mississippi

• 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.

Missouri

• 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.

Montana

• Mont. Code Ann. § 40-2-605(2) · A Montana premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Nebraska

• Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-1004(2) · A Nebraska premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Nevada

• NRS 123A.050(2) · A Nevada premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

New Hampshire

• 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.

New Jersey

• 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.

New Mexico

• 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.

New York

• 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.

North Carolina

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52B-4(b) · A North Carolina premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

North Dakota

• 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.

Ohio

• 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.

Oklahoma

• 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.

Oregon

• ORS 108.710(2) · An Oregon premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Pennsylvania

• 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(b) · A provision concerning child support, visitation, or custody remains subject to court modification upon changed circumstances.

Rhode Island

• R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-17-3(b) · A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

South Carolina

• 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.

South Dakota

• S.D. Codified Laws § 25-2-18(b) · A South Dakota premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Tennessee

• 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.

Texas

• Tex. Fam. Code § 4.003(b) · A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Utah

• 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.

Vermont

• 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.

Washington

• 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.

West Virginia

• 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.

Wisconsin

• 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.

Wyoming

• 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.