3 ms·

A pre-nup can't really address the best interests of children. They are not property to be negotiated.

by lokar 4y ago

mmastrac 4y ago
Pre-nups don't deal solely with property. They also an agreement on how two parties will behave should things go bad. In addition, by pre-negotiating the financial considerations, the two parties might better be able to negotiate what's truly in the best interests of the children instead of weaponizing them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- YPPH 4y ago
  In what jurisdiction? I find this hard to believe. It makes no sense to permit parents to agree in advance as to who should have parental responsibility. Things change, particularly when divorce occurs, and the best interests of the child is what matters - not what's agreed to beforehand.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I think the idea is that it sets an initial post-divorce set of conditions. From there, both parties could agree to do something different that was more in the interests of the children and/or the adults, but by having a written set of indicative initial conditions, you hope to reduce the cost, stress, and animosity of the subsequent divorce. (Is it perfect? Of course not. Can it be way, way better than nothing [meaning the default jurisdictional law/customs]? Absolutely.)
- ajross 4y ago
  I think you missed the point: there are more than two parties here. The children's interests, in fact, are primary to any decision a court is going to make. And they weren't party to any prenup and certainly aren't bound by it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Pre-nups don't deal solely with property. Contracts inherently deal only with property interests of the contracting parties; they can (within certain bounds) address custody because our legal system treats that as a property interest that is subject to some domain-specific limitations and oversight, because the general premise is that it is not a natural property right, but a legal contrivance for the interests of the child because parents will normally be the best motivated to serve those interests. (Though there is definitely a not-uncommom view that children are naturally property, as well.)
blip54321 4y ago
A pre-nup could handle the best interest of the children far better than a court. Best interest of the children are to minimize parental conflict. No matter the outcome, a legal process inflames conflict. Arab countries have this right. There is a strong presumption that kids go with mother up to some age, and father beyond. The rules are clear and simple, barring exceptional circumstances. Some of the Scandinavian countries do to. Barring exceptional circumstances, there is a presumption of 50/50 custody and child support is capped. There is nothing to fight over, and fighting dies down. The US high stakes system, where child support is astronomical and where everything is up for fighting over, is the biggest loser here.
indymike 4y ago
Ink my state, the interests of the kids trumps the prenup.

A pre-nup can't really address the best interests of children. They are not property to be negotiated.

by lokar 4y ago

A pre-nup can't really address the best interests of children. They are not property to be negotiated.

Pre-nups don't deal solely with property. They also an agreement on how two parties will behave should things go bad. In addition, by pre-negotiating the financial considerations, the two parties might better be able to negotiate what's truly in the best interests of the children instead of weaponizing them.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
YPPH 4y ago
In what jurisdiction? I find this hard to believe. It makes no sense to permit parents to agree in advance as to who should have parental responsibility. Things change, particularly when divorce occurs, and the best interests of the child is what matters - not what's agreed to beforehand.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I think the idea is that it sets an initial post-divorce set of conditions. From there, both parties could agree to do something different that was more in the interests of the children and/or the adults, but by having a written set of indicative initial conditions, you hope to reduce the cost, stress, and animosity of the subsequent divorce. (Is it perfect? Of course not. Can it be way, way better than nothing [meaning the default jurisdictional law/customs]? Absolutely.)
ajross 4y ago
I think you missed the point: there are more than two parties here. The children's interests, in fact, are primary to any decision a court is going to make. And they weren't party to any prenup and certainly aren't bound by it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Pre-nups don't deal solely with property. Contracts inherently deal only with property interests of the contracting parties; they can (within certain bounds) address custody because our legal system treats that as a property interest that is subject to some domain-specific limitations and oversight, because the general premise is that it is not a natural property right, but a legal contrivance for the interests of the child because parents will normally be the best motivated to serve those interests. (Though there is definitely a not-uncommom view that children are naturally property, as well.)

blip54321 4y ago

A pre-nup could handle the best interest of the children far better than a court. Best interest of the children are to minimize parental conflict. No matter the outcome, a legal process inflames conflict. Arab countries have this right. There is a strong presumption that kids go with mother up to some age, and father beyond. The rules are clear and simple, barring exceptional circumstances. Some of the Scandinavian countries do to. Barring exceptional circumstances, there is a presumption of 50/50 custody and child support is capped. There is nothing to fight over, and fighting dies down. The US high stakes system, where child support is astronomical and where everything is up for fighting over, is the biggest loser here.

indymike 4y ago

Ink my state, the interests of the kids trumps the prenup.