Whenever a prenuptial agreement is mentioned in popular culture, the parties involved are usually incredibly wealthy. This association—that only the wealthy benefit from prenuptial agreements—is partly to blame for the general public’s lack of knowledge about them. Since most people aren’t incredibly wealthy, they write off prenuptial agreements as something that wouldn’t benefit them; unaware of the potential benefits to average couples; they miss out on the opportunity to save themselves thousands of dollars in future litigation costs should the parties later divorce.

As awareness and understanding of transgendered people and related issues grows, courts are being forced to examine how the “best interest of the child,” the standard used in all custody cases, is applied in cases where the parents disagree about raising their child as a transgendered individual. From hormone replacement therapy to name changes to transformative surgeries, transgendered children are fighting to establish their right to make changes to their identity without both parents’ consent.

Factors that may be considered:

Forensic examinations can be an extremely useful tool employed by the courts to offer the judge a clearer picture of both parent-child relationships, the child’s home life, and other factors that are considered when establishing a custody arrangement.

What are forensics in child custody cases?

For most divorced or otherwise separated parents, visitation is a time for the noncustodial parent to nurture a healthy parent-child relationship. In some cases, however, the court can order that the visits must be supervised by a third-party. Supervised visitation allows the noncustodial parent to maintain a parent-child relationship without subjecting the child to any danger of harm that might otherwise occur if the visits were unsupervised.

On August 30, 2016 in a landmark case, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that non-biological, non-married, non-adoptive parents can seek custody and visitation of a child born within their relationship, with the biological parent’s consent.

The huge impact of such a ruling cannot be overstated. The case has substantial ramifications for parents of same-sex couples, as well as couples who never married and later split up. Previously, individuals in either circumstance were treated as if they were total strangers to the child in the eyes of family court, and had no legal standing to seek custody or visitation. Now, thanks to this case, “where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody.”