What is platonic parenting, and why do attorneys and judges need to  familiarize themselves with this emerging and sometimes controversial concept? 

When social commentators  speak of a "platonic parenting" agreement,  they may be  referencing a non-traditional arrangement wherein two or more  persons—who have no present intentions of a romantic relationship—nonetheless agree to jointly conceive and raise a child together. Largely unheard of a generation ago, this type of agreement often  involves one of the two following situations, resulting in a planned pregnancy by either artificial insemination or natural conception: 

1. The parties are not in a romantic relationship, but are historically "good friends" and agree to conceive and raise a child together, without  forming a single household or other traditional family unit;
2. The parties are historical strangers to each other, but meet either online or through a common intermediary for the express purpose of exploring the possibility of having a child  and raising a child together, without commitment of a present or future romantic relationship.

The concept of joining with another person for the purpose of potentially conceiving and then raising the child together as non-romantic parental partners is often a socially polarizing one. Some people oppose the concept, arguing that it is inherently detrimental to a child. Others support the idea as a way of providing good or even excellent parents with an opportunity to have and raise children, but without a prior requirement of romantic commitment in a relationship that may ultimately fail and possibly cause even more emotional trauma to a child. Logically, as with all other traditional and non-traditional parenting arrangements and experiences, some individuals may ultimately find such a parenting arrangement to be unworkable, while others may find  great success. In large part, the result may depend on the qualities of, and dynamics between, the specific persons involved.