germany marriage divorce poland prenuptial-agreement
Can a person go to the court if she signed a contract not to go to court?
<p>Suppose a couple signed a prenuptial contract that said they couldn't go to court regarding their divorce and custody of children. Everything must be resolved through mutual consensus and consultation of their respective families.</p>
<p>After some time, the wife wants a divorce and full custody of the children, but the husband won't agree with her about the custody. He won't let children go no matter what.</p>
<p>Can she go to court?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What kind of contract would that be? One about... arbitration? One about &quot;I hereby relinquish my claim for payment of X?&quot; --- children cannot be taken away from their father, no matter what. - <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/84256/can-a-person-go-to-the-court-if-she-signed-a-contract-not-to-go-to-court#comment185394_84256">OP</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>That contract is void in <a href="/questions/tagged/germany" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="germany-container">germany</a> because this contract not only violates public policy, it tries to modify something that is regulated by law into a way that does offer <strong>less</strong> than the law demands as a minimum. That's not allowed in Germany. Further, a clause that gives custody to the father by default is <strong>also</strong> Sittenwidrig in Germany, and thus void under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__138.html" rel="noreferrer">§138 BGB</a>. So would be a clause that gives it to the mother by default by the way.</p>
<p>In a case of controversy, only a court order can assign guardianship. And only the court can take guardianship away. When the kid is born its guardianship gets assigned to the parents as guardians by <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__1626.html" rel="noreferrer">§1626 BGB</a>. While it is possible to give your partner guardianship if you're not married under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__1626a.html" rel="noreferrer">1626a BGB</a> it is <strong>explicitly</strong> impossible to assign guardianship for <strong>any</strong> compensation to either party (e.g. the mother or the new guardian may not receive anything other than the guardianship in the specific paper) under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__1626b.html" rel="noreferrer">1626b BGB</a>. Thus a contract that does anything else in addition to guardianship, like a prenup, voids at least the guardianship clauses. And you have to tell the court about that assignment of guardianship under (<a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__1626d.html" rel="noreferrer">$1626d BGB</a>). Now comes the kicker: <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__1628.html" rel="noreferrer">§1628 BGB</a> forces the parents to apply to the court to solve any problems of huge impact, such as guardianship: So technically, mediation results are fully non-binding and you can not mandate it.</p>
<p>Also, since all marriages are through the state, it needs a formal instrument of the state to be dissolved. The only three ways that the state ever allowed this to be done after WW2 were a) annulment through a court, which only was possible till 1998, or b) divorce through a court, c) death of one of the marriage partners. Yes, it takes a judge to divorce a marriage under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__1313.html" rel="noreferrer">$1313 BGB</a> or one of the two married to die.</p>
<p>Because you can't divorce without a filing in court, a clause that demands to divorce in some way that is <em>not</em> including §1313 BGB, that clause would be void. It <em>might</em> be legal to have a clause that demands to try to solve issues in arbitration before filing for divorce or sorting the belongings in such a way, but it can't supplant the court requirement.</p>

<p>In the United States, this contract would be void for violating public policy.</p>

<p>Under Oregon Statutes § <a href="https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors108.html" rel="noreferrer">108.710</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Subjects of agreement; child support not to be adversely affected.</strong></p>
<p>(1) Parties to a premarital agreement may contract with respect to:</p>
<p>(a) The rights and obligations of each of the parties in any of the
property of either or both of them whenever and wherever acquired
or located;</p>
<p>(b) The right to buy, sell, use, transfer, exchange, abandon, lease, &gt;
consume, expend, assign, create a security interest in, mortgage,
encumber, dispose of or otherwise manage and control property;   (c)
The disposition of property upon separation, marital dissolution,
death or the occurrence or nonoccurrence of any other event;</p>
<p>(d) The modification or elimination of spousal support;</p>
<p>(e) The making of a will, trust or other arrangement to carry out  the
provisions of the agreement;</p>
<p>(f) The ownership rights in and disposition of the death benefit  from
a life insurance policy;</p>
<p>(g) The choice of law governing the construction of the agreement; and</p>
<p>(h) Any other matter, including their personal rights and obligations,
not in violation of public policy or a statute imposing a criminal
penalty.</p>
<p>(2) The right of a child to support may not be adversely affected by a
premarital agreement.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Marriages may be terminated only by death or court order of divorce or annulment, so one can't get divorced without going to court.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the right to seek a divorce may not be waived entirely in any state, although some U.S. states have a concept called &quot;covenant marriage&quot; that can subject a marriage to fault based standards for divorce rather than the no fault standards that apply otherwise (the applicability of those laws if divorce is sought in another state is something of an open legal question). An agreement to do so would be void as contrary to public policy.</p>
<p>In general, marital agreements pertaining to child custody and child support are void because the children are not parties to the agreement.</p>
<p>Matters that are properly within the scope of what may be in a marital agreement can, however, generally be required to be resolved by arbitration. But the marital agreement and arbitration awards arising from a marital agreement cannot be unconscionable as applied even if they would have not been unconscionable, necessarily, when entered into by the parties. See Oregon Statutes § <a href="https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors108.html" rel="noreferrer">108.725</a> which states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Party may prove agreement unenforceable; when court may require support; determination of unconscionability.</strong></p>
<p>(1) A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against
whom enforcement is sought proves that:</p>
<p>(a) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; or</p>
<p>(b) The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before
execution of the agreement, that party:</p>
<p>(A) Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property
or financial obligations of the other party;</p>
<p>(B) Did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to
disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party
beyond the disclosure provided; and</p>
<p>(C) Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate
knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.</p>
<p>(2) If a provision of a premarital agreement modifies or eliminates
spousal support and that modification or elimination causes one party
to the agreement to be eligible for support under a program of public
assistance or medical assistance at the time of separation or marital
dissolution, a court, notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, may
require the other party to provide support to the extent necessary to
avoid that eligibility.</p>
<p>(3) An issue of whether a premarital agreement is unconscionable shall
be decided by the court as a matter of law.</p>
</blockquote>
