Is There a Child Support “Loophole” in Premarital Agreements?


Premarital agreements allow individuals to make agreements about their property rights and even with regard to future spousal support, although the latter involves complications and special considerations related to enforceability.  What has always been clear is that parties cannot make agreements about child support (or child custody) in a premarital agreement.  The law is clear that parents (or future parents) have no right to negotiate or give away a child’s right to support.

If a woman gets pregnant and has baby by a man who is a higher wage earner or has more wealth than she, then she will receive child support for that child.  There is no agreement which can prevent this result.  Putting aside the discussion of the man’s role in the resulting pregnancy (including lack of any precautions for prevention), child support will be ordered.  The very newsworthy cases on high child support orders involve sports stars.  A recent article about Michael Jordan discusses the fact that, despite having a purported “ironclad” premarital agreement with his new wife, his wealth likely cannot be protected from a child support order should they later divorce after having one or more children together.  I suppose this is a “loophole” in the premarital agreement, and one every breadwinner needs to be aware of.

In some states protections for the breadwinner may exist, such as trust accounts implemented to assure the child and not the mother is benefitting from the child support; but this is not the case in California.  My recent blog discussed this situation and how the breadwinner might be able to minimize the effect of the current state of the law in California.

It is highly unlikely the laws will ever change to allow people to reach agreements in premarital agreements concerning child support.  Therefore, it is important for the breadwinner (often the man) to know this fact and make his decisions accordingly.  The law will always protect the child, which for now also allows the parent receiving the support to benefit from that support absent agreements to the contrary, such as a trust for the children or the payment of the children’s expenses directly to the provider of services.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Van Oorschot Law Group, PC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.