Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Draft

Outline a custody declaration the judge can verify

Turns the client's account into a declaration outline organized by your state's best-interest factors, every incident pinned to a date, a witness, and an exhibit, with the other parent's real strengths conceded up front.

About 15 minstarterFamily, Litigation, Solo / small firm

Your prompt5,064 characters

Still to fill in: State and factor statute, Client's account, The parenting-plan request

RoleYou are a family law practitioner who has drafted hundreds of declarations and watched judges credit some and shred others. You write in dated incidents rather than adjectives, you concede what is true about the other parent because credibility is the only currency in the room, and you cut any sentence that sounds like a lawyer arguing rather than a parent remembering.What I needBuild the custody declaration outline for this posture: Initial custody and parenting-time request, in State and factor statute, supporting the request in The parenting-plan request. Use only what the account and the exhibits will actually carry.InputsClient's account: Client's account The request: The parenting-plan request Exhibits available: What you can attach Other parent's strengths: The other parent's genuine strengths State and factors: State and factor statute Posture: Initial custody and parenting-time requestHow to work this1. Set the structure from Initial custody and parenting-time request: an initial request builds factor by factor, a modification opens with what changed, a response answers their paragraphs in order, an emergency leads with the harm and its last date. Head each section with State and factor statute's statutory factors as the statute names them, or mark them [UNVERIFIED - confirm the factor statute]. 2. Put the concession paragraph before any criticism: two or three items from The other parent's genuine strengths, plainly stated, no qualifier attached. 3. Under each factor include only incidents carrying a date, a place, and either a named witness or an exhibit from What you can attach; everything else goes in a closing list of what cannot be supported yet. Convert labels into observed behavior (who saw what, at what hour, no diagnosis without a record) and quote messages exactly: one or two lines, the date, the exhibit letter. No paraphrase, and never the child's words unless the statement is itself the fact at issue. 4. Mark every secondhand statement [HEARSAY - needs the witness or an exception], then restate The parenting-plan request operationally: days, times, exchange locations, decision categories, communication channel, and for each condition the evidence that satisfies it.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every date, sequence, or relationship I inferred from the narrative, plus the factor statute I applied. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where this is weakest. The two passages that read as advocacy rather than observation, and the incident whose exhibit does not prove what the paragraph claims. Quote them. What only you can decide. Present each as options with tradeoffs. At minimum: whether the substance-use history goes in. It is the strongest material here and the only visible basis for the restriction, but it guarantees a responsive declaration, may trigger a presumption or an evaluation, and ends any cooperative posture. Holding it back keeps the tone workable and leaves the request looking unsupported. Also: ask for the restriction now, or ask for an evaluation first. What would make this materially better. The one document or witness that would most strengthen the outline: the school log, the exchange witness's own statement, the treatment records. Rank by impact.Output formatAn outline: caption and declarant, a background paragraph stating the order sought, the concession paragraph, one heading per statutory factor with pinned incidents, the operational request, the exhibit list, the verification line, and a list of facts not yet supported. Then the four sections.Never do this- If this outline would fit any custody case in any state, it is too generic. Build it from these dates, these witnesses, this state's factors. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it is clear that," and "any reasonable parent would." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am preparing this for signature. - Never invent a date, a quotation, an exhibit, or a witness. If a detail is missing, write [DATE NEEDED] or [WITNESS NEEDED]. This is sworn testimony, and one invented detail ends the client's credibility on every other point. - Where you do not know State and factor statute's factor list, its presumptions on substance use or family violence, or whether a recording is admissible, say you do not know. Do not smooth over the gap with confident prose. - Do not pad. Six pinned incidents beat twenty adjectives. Length is not value.Before you answer- Is every incident pinned to a date, a place, and a witness or exhibit, or did one slip in unsupported? - Did I concede the other parent's strengths without immediately undercutting them, and replace every label with behavior? - Is the request in times, places, and channels rather than a custody label, and would this read as testimony rather than argument?

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

Fourteen custody declarations have crossed this judge's desk this week, and she distrusts every one that makes the other parent sound like a monster. Yours is the fifteenth. Read the outline as the judge reads it: name the three passages that sound like advocacy rather than observation, and the one place where the exhibit does not actually prove what the sentence claims. Rewrite each as a dated, witnessed fact, then name the single fact that, if the client can supply it, would move you more than everything else in the outline combined.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Find the person who was standing there when it happened. Draft the corroborating witness declaration for the strongest incident in the outline: the school administrator, neighbor, or family friend who was actually present. Limit it strictly to that witness's own perception, give date, time, place, and what they observed in their own register rather than a lawyer's, and end with the verification. Then list what you would need to confirm before asking that person to sign.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • The client's narrative with dates, places, and who else was present
  • Your state's best-interest factor statute
  • What you can actually attach: texts, emails, school and medical records, photos
  • Genuine strengths of the other parent worth conceding
  • The specific parenting schedule and decision-making you are asking for

Watch for

  • Best-interest factors are statutory and differ meaningfully by state. Draft from the current statute, not from a factor list that sounds familiar.
  • Allegations of substance use or family violence trigger their own procedures and presumptions, and often an evaluation. Coordinate with case strategy before putting them in writing.
  • Recordings of the other parent or the child are governed by state wiretap and consent law. Confirm admissibility before attaching or quoting one.
  • Hearsay rules apply unevenly in custody proceedings. Flag every secondhand statement and decide deliberately whether it stays.
  • Quoting the child is high risk. It invites an alienation counter-narrative and can put the child in the middle of the case.

What comes back

A declaration outline: caption and declarant identification, a short background paragraph stating the order sought, the concession paragraph, one heading per statutory best-interest factor with incidents pinned to date, place, witness, and exhibit, the parenting-plan request in operational terms, an ordered exhibit list, the verification line, and a separate list of facts that cannot be supported yet. Followed by the four closing sections.

See an example of what you’ll get
Declaration of Sara Lin in Support of Request to Modify Custody and Visitation In re Marriage of Lin, No. FL26-1142 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.) Background. I am Lila's mother. Lila is 7 (DOB 11/4/2018). The current order, entered June 2024, gives Mr. Lin alternating weekends with overnights. I ask the Court to suspend overnights until he documents 90 days of sobriety, and to give me sole authority over medical decisions for the next 12 months. Mr. Lin's strengths. Mr. Lin attends most of Lila's soccer games and knows her teammates' names. His mother, who lives ten minutes from him, has cared for Lila since she was an infant and they are close. He has worked at Bayview Logistics for nine years. Lila is happy to see him. I am not asking the Court to cut off their relationship. Factor: health, safety, and welfare of the child (Fam. Code § 3011(a)(1)) [UNVERIFIED - confirm current subdivision numbering]. - *March 14, 2026, 3:00 p.m., Lakeside Elementary.* Mr. Lin was scheduled to pick Lila up. He did not arrive. The school office called me at 3:42 p.m. (Ex. A, call log). He returned my call at 6:15 p.m. and said he had lost track of the day (Ex. B, text 3/14 at 6:19 p.m.: "lost track of the day, is she with you"). - *April 2, 2026, 6:00 p.m., school office exchange.* I smelled alcohol on Mr. Lin from about three feet away. Vice Principal Maria Reyes was present and walked Lila to my car (Ex. C, email from Ms. Reyes dated 4/2/26). [HEARSAY - Ms. Reyes's email states her own observation; secure her declaration rather than relying on the email.] Factor: co-parenting and each parent's ability to support the child's relationship with the other. - I have not withheld or shortened any of Mr. Lin's scheduled time since the June 2024 order (Ex. D, shared calendar). - Mr. Lin cancelled or shortened 6 of the last 14 scheduled visits, each time within four hours of the exchange (Ex. E, texts). - *April 19, 2026.* Mr. Lin sent a group message that included Lila's tablet: "your mother is crazy and everyone knows it" (Ex. F). Request. Primary residence with me. Mr. Lin alternating weekends Friday 4:00 p.m. to Sunday 6:00 p.m., plus Wednesday dinners 5:00 to 7:00 p.m., no overnight. Overnights resume on 90 consecutive days of documented testing. Exchanges curbside at Lakeside Elementary on school days and at his mother's home (44 Pine St.) otherwise. Communication through a parenting app within 30 days; emergencies by phone. Joint legal custody, with sole medical authority to me for 12 months while Lila is in treatment for anxiety. Cannot support yet. That Mr. Lin drove Lila after drinking. I believe it, and I have no observation, witness, or record of it. It stays out unless the treatment or DMV records show it. --- Assumptions I made. That the June 2024 order is the operative one [verify]. That Ms. Reyes will sign a declaration [verify - the email alone is hearsay]. That the two DUI judgments are admissible and final [safe if certified copies]. Where this is weakest. "I smelled alcohol from about three feet away" is the linchpin of the overnight restriction and rests on one lay observation; without Ms. Reyes's declaration it is one parent's word. And the paragraph on cancelled visits reads as a tally rather than an effect on Lila. Tie it to what she did that afternoon. What only you can decide. Whether the drinking history goes in this declaration. It is the strongest material you have and the only basis for the overnight restriction, but it guarantees a responsive declaration, likely an evaluation, and the end of any cooperative posture. The alternative (asking for an evaluation first and holding the incidents back) keeps the temperature down but leaves your restriction request looking unsupported. Also yours: whether to ask for sole medical authority now, which is achievable on the anxiety-treatment facts, or to keep joint legal intact and preserve goodwill for the schedule fight. What would make this materially better. (1) Ms. Reyes's own signed declaration. (2) Certified copies of the DUI judgments. (3) Lila's pediatric or therapy records establishing the treatment need behind the medical-decision request.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Structure follows posture, headings follow the statute.** An initial plan builds factor by factor; a modification leads with what changed since the last order; a response answers the other declaration paragraph by paragraph before adding anything new. Head each section with the state's own best-interest factors, named as the statute names them. 2. **Concede first.** Two or three genuine strengths of the other parent, stated without qualifiers, before any criticism. A declaration that concedes nothing gets discounted entirely. 3. **One incident, one fact, fully pinned.** Date, place, witness, exhibit. Behavior, never labels: not "he was drunk" but what was observed, by whom, at what hour. Quote written communications exactly and briefly. Anything that cannot be pinned goes on a separate list, not in the declaration. 4. **Flag hearsay on sight, and make the ask operational.** Days, times, places, decision categories, communication channel, and for any condition, the objective evidence that satisfies it. "Sole custody" is a label, not a request.