pre-birth custody agreements

[sacs069]

What is the name of your state? FL

I am attempting to get advice on whether there is any type of legal agreement that can be drawn up when an unmarried couple (who are no longer together) wish to share custody of their child (unborn yet). They have both verbally agreed to this decision, but there are concerns regarding influence from their respective families and of course what will happen if in the future, something should happen to one of them? They would like to actually have the child live with each of them equally, with neither parent paying the other child support, but simply being responsible for support while the child is living with the respective parent.
Is there any type of agreement that can be drawn up and upheld in court?

[snostar]

Is there any type of agreement that can be drawn up and upheld in court?

Sure, it's called a court order signed by a judge. But, it can't be done until after the birth of the child.

[rmet4nzkx]

Yes you can have a stipulated agreement prior to birth but it would still have to conform to the laws of the State of Flordia, search "Flordia paternity law" that will lead you to the statutes. Whether the father signs an acknowledgement or DNA testing is done, DNA testing can be done as early as 10 weeks but involves some risk and greater expense. While they may want to share custody without child support, that may not be in the best interest of the child and lead to potential conflicts at a later date so best to spell things out in writing in the begining and avoid misunderstandings and this will also establish what the parents want as opposed to their families leaving less stress.

[stealth2]

DNA testing can be done as early as 10 weeks but involves some risk and greater expense.

If you mean 10 weeks in utero, there would be compelling reasons required to do so - simply for paternity testing would not likely qualify due to the risk to the child. Few OBs would be willing to do so.

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? FL

I am attempting to get advice on whether there is any type of legal agreement that can be drawn up when an unmarried couple (who are no longer together) wish to share custody of their child (unborn yet). They have both verbally agreed to this decision, but there are concerns regarding influence from their respective families and of course what will happen if in the future, something should happen to one of them? They would like to actually have the child live with each of them equally, with neither parent paying the other child support, but simply being responsible for support while the child is living with the respective parent.
Is there any type of agreement that can be drawn up and upheld in court?

Honestly, that type of arrangement would NOT be good for an infant. It would be extremely confusing for the infant and can lead to all kinds of attachment disorders. In addition, no orders for children are ever permanent (irrevokeable) therefore there is a strong probability that mom won't agree once the child is born. Here is a link to a state's parenting time guidelines that were developed based on what is best for the child developmentally. Look over those to get an idea of what the "experts" consider to be best.

It may be that if you start out with something similar to these guidelines, but then "morph" into joint custody that it would be heathier for the child. However, you need to remember that joint custody will tie the two of you into living in the same school district until the child graduates. Be sure that you are prepared to do that.

[url]http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/parenting/#index[/url]

[rmet4nzkx]

Yes there is some risk with CVS and would only be done if there was some medical reason, I only used that as an example of the earliest date invasive prenatal DNA testing could be done, if establishing paternity is vital, next is Amniosynthesis at 14-16 weeks, the risk is 1-3% for both procedures and would be done agan if there was some reason to test, also non invasive blood test very expensive can be done if it is the first pregnancy for the mother, it can be done following other children but may capture fetal cells of former pregnancies and not as accurate.

[LdiJ]

Yes there is some risk with CVS and would only be done if there was some medical reason, I only used that as an example of the earliest date invasive prenatal DNA testing could be done, if establishing paternity is vital, next is Amniosynthesis at 14-16 weeks, the risk is 1-3% for both procedures and would be done agan if there was some reason to test, also non invasive blood test very expensive can be done if it is the first pregnancy for the mother, it can be done following other children but may capture fetal cells of former pregnancies and not as accurate.

The bottom line is that a doctor is unlikely to agree to perform pre-natal paternity tests and a judge is almost guaranteed to refuse to order them.

[nextwife]

Honestly, that type of arrangement would NOT be good for an infant. It would be extremely confusing for the infant and can lead to all kinds of attachment disorders.

[url]http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/parenting/#index[/url]

What attachment studies is this claim based upon? New fathers are no less capable of trading off in the care of their infant child than are new mothers. Infants quickly know and respond to their primary caregivers.

Attachment studies showing attachment disorders such as RAD show that attachment problems are due to repeated LOSS of caregivers to which they have begun to be attached, as what occurs in orphanage systems. Additionally, attachment is thought to occur through the process of the primary caregiver(s) showing the child a pattern of consistantly "meeting their needs", meaning being the face they see when the cry and are then held and comforted, being feed when hungry and so on. Dad should have the opportunity to be the parent who meets their child's needs as much as mom does. They are babies for such a short time. Why should he miss 75% of the parenting time in infancy? I missed my kids infancy and one can never go back and get a chance to experience it once past.

Most studies show that children of seperate parents household in general do better when they get shared parenting, rather than dad always being merely a visitor. In married households, a child has no problem having mom or dad act as caregiver. Both parents can provide nurturing environments for a child, and the child will experience the love of both their parents.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Sure, it's called a court order signed by a judge. But, it can't be done until after the birth of the child.

My response:

The above by "Snostar" was the only, and absolutely, correct response on this thread. Not only that, but Snostars response was the only one that hit the issue of the OP, and stayed "on track".

A few of you need to brush up on Roe vs. Wade, AND its progeny.

With the exception of limited situations having to do with Criminal Law, a court has NO jurisdiction over an UNBORN child. Once the child is born, then the court has jurisdiction to make visitation, custody and support orders.

Private agreements have ABSOLUTELY no weight or force of law. A parent, or parents, CANNOT usurp the jurisdiction of a court by making a private agreement concerning a child. Such an agreement is VOID ab initio. (void from the beginning).

IAAL

[rmet4nzkx]

Amniosynthesis is routinely done in pregnancy both to test for genetic deficits and to test for Paternity, it would not be court ordered and the mother would have to be willing, but it would establish paternity if needed to plan for the child's future care. Nothing keeps parents form planning for the future before a chid is born but when they are not married it does create some problems if they don't plan to cohabit. A judge would have to sign the resultig support order after the child is born and hopefully it would have some provision to ensure finances for the child's care.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Our writer's original post said - -

What is the name of your state? FL

I am attempting to get advice on whether there is any type of legal agreement that can be drawn up when an unmarried couple (who are no longer together) wish to share custody of their child (unborn yet). They have both verbally agreed to this decision, but there are concerns regarding influence from their respective families and of course what will happen if in the future, something should happen to one of them? They would like to actually have the child live with each of them equally, with neither parent paying the other child support, but simply being responsible for support while the child is living with the respective parent.
Is there any type of agreement that can be drawn up and upheld in court?

rmet4nzkx

Amniosynthesis is routinely done in pregnancy both to test for genetic deficits and to test for Paternity, it would not be court ordered and the mother would have to be willing, but it would establish paternity if needed to plan for the child's future care. Nothing keeps parents form planning for the future before a chid is born but when they are not married it does create some problems if they don't plan to cohabit. A judge would have to sign the resultig support order after the child is born and hopefully it would have some provision to ensure finances for the child's care.

I'm confused. Can you tell me which portion of our OP's post you're responding to in the above quote?

IAAL

[rmet4nzkx]

That information was in response to Stealth2 and Ldij's coments.

I brought the issue of DNA testing up because in unmarried couples that is the number one question that confuses planning for a child's future and well meaning relatives and friends will almost always attack the mother's faithfulness, which may or may not be suspect and forget the ultimate best welfare of the unborn child. So settling that question often leads to realistic planning rather than delaying until after the child is born unless they can agree to cooporate, the OP said that both of their famalies were interfering with that process and that was why they wanted to make an agreement, logic would then require some acknowledgement of paternity.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

That information was in response to Stealth2 and Ldij's coments.

I brought the issue of DNA testing up because in unmarried couples that is the number one question that confuses planning for a child's future and well meaning relatives and friends will almost always attack the mother's faithfulness, which may or may not be suspect and forget the ultimate best welfare of the unborn child. So settling that question often leads to realistic planning rather than delaying until after the child is born unless they can agree to cooporate, the OP said that both of their famalies were interfering with that process and that was why they wanted to make an agreement, logic would then require some acknowledgement of paternity.

My response:

Okay, so basically your response was legally meaningless. None of what you discuss can occur, and have any legal significance, until the child is born and there's a court ordered DNA test. Private DNA testing has no evidentiary value in court.

It doesn't matter one iota whether the family is interfering. The OP was asking about the legal value of a private agreement, and that question was answered early on.

Please, try not to stray too far off from any OP's scenario, situation and questions. Your responses went way off the scale.

IAAL