The Court of Appeals in Spires v. Spires, held invalid portions of a Marital Separation Agreement that preemptively outlined and addressed the child custody of the children.

The parties in order to amicably resolve martial issues had jointly drafted and signed a document described as a marital agreement, in which Mr. Spires promised to remain married to Mrs. Spires as long as she complied with thirteen Articles of Continuance as well as in the event of a divorce, seven Articles of Dissolution which essentially conferred on Mr. Spires sole custody of the children with absolute power to determine Mrs. Spires’ visitation rights.

Parties eventually ended in the Court system seeking dissolution of marriage, equitable distribution of joint property and award of child custody and child support.

After the evidentiary hearing, the trial court actually awarded Mrs. Spires physical custody of the children and contrary to the agreement signed by the parties.

Mr. Spires appealed maintaining the trial court abused its discretion in failing to enforce provisions of the marital and separation agreement, which granted him sole custody of the children and to have complete power to determine Mrs. Spires’ visitation rights.

The Court of Appeals held invalid portions of the marital agreement that preempted the Court from assessing and determining the best interests of the children.  Parties by contract and agreement cannot confer rights vested solely to the court system.

Thus, after involving the judicial system and submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, the parents cannot by agreement deprive it of power to control the custody and maintenance of the child. Moreover, a child is in a very real sense the ward of the court.

The provisions in the marital separation agreement upon which Mr. Spires relied for sole custody in essence deprived the court of the power to determine whether the parties’ custody arrangement was in the best interests of the children.  Because, after evidentiary hearing, it was determined that the best interests of the children dictated custody with the mother — provisions of the martial agreement contrary to the children’s best interests were held invalid and unenforceable.

The trial court will always make custody and visitation decision solely based on the best interests of the children and any private agreement contrary to that will be held invalid.

The best interests of the child have a Statutory definition.

Overall, in determining the care and custody of a child, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration. To determine the best interest of the child, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:

• The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian, where practicable;
• The wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to the child’s custody;
• The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parent or parents, his or her siblings, and any other person who may emotionally or psychologically affect the child’s best interest;
• The child’s adjustment to his or her home, school, and community;
• The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
• Evidence of an intrafamily offense.
• The capacity of the parents to communicate and reach shared decisions affecting the child’s welfare;
• The willingness of the parents to share custody;
• The prior involvement of each parent in the child’s life;
• The potential disruption of the child’s social and school life;
• The geographic proximity of the parental homes as this relates to the practical considerations of the child’s residential schedule;
• The demands of parental employment;
• The age and number of children;
• The sincerity of each parent’s request;
• The parent’s ability to financially support a joint custody arrangement.

Refer to our Washington DC Divorce Lawyer page for more details on this subject.