## Facts

- In 1987, Tamara Budnick and Frederick Silverman executed a written “Preconception Agreement” under which Budnick sought to conceive a child with Silverman through sexual intercourse.
- The agreement provided that if Budnick became pregnant, she would have sole custody and bear all expenses.
- Budnick agreed not to disclose Silverman’s paternity, not to place his name on the birth certificate, and not to file a paternity action against him.
- The agreement also stated that if Budnick failed to comply, Silverman could elect to assume “full and complete and permanent custody and guardianship” of the child.
- A child was born on April 6, 1989.
- In September 1999, Budnick filed a petition to determine paternity and obtain sole parental responsibility, child support, and fees and costs.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Silverman enforcing the agreement and held Budnick’s claim for child support arrearages barred by laches.
- Budnick appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a preconception agreement is enforceable where it attempts to prevent establishment of paternity and relieve a biological father of all parental duties, including child support.
2. Whether laches bars a mother’s child support claim (including arrearages) based on a delay of approximately ten years in bringing a paternity and support action.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Silverman and remanded.
- The court held the preconception agreement unenforceable to the extent it attempted to waive the child’s right to support and a meaningful relationship with the father.
- The court held laches did not bar the child support claim because delay alone was insufficient and legally sufficient prejudice was not shown.

## Legal Principles

- Agreements that relieve a parent of the duty to support a child are void as against public policy.
- The rights to support and a meaningful parent-child relationship belong to the child; parents cannot contract away those rights.
- Public-policy limits on waivers of parental responsibility apply even when the agreement is made before conception.
- Laches requires prejudice, not merely passage of time; it is applied narrowly when asserted to defeat child support obligations.
- A claimed reliance on a private waiver of support is insufficient to establish laches where the obligor cannot show substantial prejudice attributable to the delay.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a preconception agreement that attempted to eliminate a biological father’s parental obligations and block paternity establishment, and it rejected laches as a bar to child support absent a showing of prejudice, remanding for determination of paternity and appropriate support.


Budnick v. Silverman, 805 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)