Custody Best-Interest Factor Evidence Matrix
Once you have a meaningful set of evidence in a custody case, before drafting declarations or a trial outline, and again before mediation to see which factors still need support.
Custody cases are decided factor by factor, and the best-interest factors in your jurisdiction are the frame the judge will use. Evidence, though, arrives in no particular order: screenshots of texts, report cards, pediatrician notes, a neighbor's declaration, the client's own journal. Seeing which factors are well supported and which rest on the client's word alone is hard when the evidence lives in a dozen folders.
This prompt maps that evidence onto the factors you paste in. For each factor, Claude lists the supporting items with a short verbatim quote, what the item shows, which parent it favors and how strong it is, along with any foundation concerns. It then pulls out the factors with thin support, collects every item that helps the other parent, and lists anything it could not map. It complements a parenting-plan workflow by showing what you can actually prove.
The matrix organizes evidence; it does not predict how a court will weigh it, and it should never characterize a parent beyond what the evidence shows. Strength ratings are a first read for you to revise. Confirm the factors against current law, check every quote against the original exhibit, and make your own judgment about admissibility. The output is a draft for attorney review.
The Prompt
I represent [CLIENT NAME], the [mother / father / parent], in a custody matter in [JURISDICTION]. The children are [NAMES AND AGES]. Our goal is [e.g., primary physical custody, joint legal custody, a modified schedule]. The best-interest factors the court will apply are: <factors> [PASTE YOUR STATE FACTORS, WORD FOR WORD FROM THE STATUTE OR CASE LAW] </factors> Evidence gathered so far: <document name="evidence"> [PASTE TEXTS, EMAILS, SCHOOL RECORDS, MEDICAL RECORDS, DECLARATIONS, CLIENT NOTES. Label each item with a short ID like TXT-01, SCH-02, DEC-03] </document> Build an evidence matrix: 1. For each factor, in the order listed: a table with columns Evidence ID | Quote (verbatim, short) | What it shows | Favors (Our client / Other parent / Neutral) | Strength (Strong / Moderate / Weak) | Admissibility or foundation concern. 2. Under each factor, a two-sentence assessment of where the evidence stands now. 3. Weak or empty factors: list each factor with little or no evidence, and suggest the kinds of evidence that could address it (records, witnesses, testimony) without assuming they exist. 4. Evidence that hurts us: collect every item tagged as favoring the other parent, so I can prepare to address it. 5. Items you could not map to any factor. Rules: quote only from the evidence provided, never paraphrase as if quoting, and do not characterize either parent beyond what the evidence shows. If an item could fit more than one factor, list it under each and note the overlap. Do not apply legal conclusions about how the court will weigh factors. If any item suggests domestic violence, abuse or a child-safety concern, list it at the top of the output, because it may trigger separate presumptions or procedures under [JURISDICTION] law. This is a draft for attorney review, and any legal standard must be verified against [JURISDICTION] law.
Example Output
A factor-by-factor matrix of quoted evidence tagged by which parent it favors and how strong it is, plus a list of thin factors, adverse evidence and unmapped items.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
CUSTODY EVIDENCE MATRIX (DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW) Client: Nadia Corvell (mother) | Children: Luca (9), Bea (6) | Goal: primary physical custody FACTOR 2: Each parent's involvement in the child's education ID | Quote | Shows | Favors | Strength | Concern SCH-01 | "Ms. Corvell attended all parent-teacher conferences this year." | Consistent school involvement | Our client | Strong | Need custodian declaration or certified record TXT-07 | "Can you do pickup Thurs? I have a work thing" (father, 3/14) | Father arranging pickup | Neutral | Weak | None DEC-02 | "Luca's father helps him with math most weekends." (paternal aunt) | Father involvement | Other parent | Moderate | Interested witness Assessment: Records support client's involvement. The aunt's declaration gives the other parent a counterpoint to prepare for. FACTOR 5: Willingness to foster a relationship with the other parent ID | Quote | Shows | Favors | Strength | Concern TXT-12 | "You're not seeing them this weekend, period." (client, 5/02) | Client withholding time | Other parent | Strong | None; client confirms sending it (NOTE-02) Assessment: Currently weak for us. TXT-12 is a significant adverse item. WEAK OR EMPTY FACTORS - Factor 7 (child's adjustment to community): no evidence yet. Consider activity coach records or neighbor testimony, if they exist. - Factor 4 (health of the parents): no evidence provided either way. EVIDENCE THAT HURTS US TXT-12, DEC-02, TXT-15 UNMAPPED ITEMS NOTE-04 (client's budget notes): not relevant to listed factors.
Tips
- •Paste the factors verbatim from your statute or controlling case law. Claude should map to the court's actual list, not a generic one.
- •Give every exhibit a short ID before pasting. It makes the matrix checkable and lets you reuse it as an exhibit index.
- •Read the adverse-evidence section first. It is the part clients leave out and the other side will lead with.
- •Pair the matrix with the co-parenting message chronology prompt if text messages are a large part of the evidence.
- •Treat the matrix as a draft for attorney review and verify every legal standard and citation before relying on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Claude tell me how a judge will weigh the factors?
No, and the prompt tells it not to try. Weighing depends on the judge, the controlling case law and facts that never appear in documents, such as how witnesses present. The matrix shows where support is strong, thin or adverse so you can make that judgment yourself and decide where to spend investigation and preparation time.
Why paste the factors instead of letting Claude use general ones?
Best-interest factors differ between jurisdictions in number, wording and emphasis, and some courts also consider factors drawn from case law. Mapping evidence to a generic list can leave out the factor your judge cares about most. Paste the exact language from your statute or controlling authority and verify it is current.
Is it safe to upload texts and records involving children?
This is sensitive material. Redact children's full names, dates of birth, school names and medical identifiers where they are not needed, follow ABA Model Rule 1.6 and any court protective orders or sealing rules, and use a Claude plan with appropriate data protections. Check whether your jurisdiction restricts sharing certain records, such as custody evaluations.
How should I use the strength ratings?
As a first read to argue with. Claude rates strength from the text alone, without knowing credibility, foundation problems you are aware of or how the other side will respond. Revise the ratings as you prepare, and focus the client conversation on the adverse items and empty factors, which usually drive strategy more than the strong ones.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.