Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Nov 6, 2014 0:13:01 GMT -5
The 401k is your retirement money. YOU will need that in retirement - it's not money to spend in your 40s/50s if your DH dies. Life insurance is for getting you back on your feet - an especially daunting task if you've been a SAHM for years. I'm not sure why you are thinking so much about the SK's inheritance. If there were no divorce and your SKs were your biological kids, would you cash out 1/2 your retirement for them if their dad died? That doesn't make any sense to me. IMO all the money should be designated to you. It's simple and logical.
Now, if your DH does die there's no reason why you can't give the SK money. Maybe you get back on your feet faster than you thought you would. Fine - give them some of the unused life insurance money. I don't understand why you need to make that part of the will, though. And I certainly don't understand why you need to stress about all these hypotheticals now. Make your will clean and simple (everything to you) and then divide it later if need be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 0:18:52 GMT -5
Yes, that makes sense too, that everything come to you. Before I just meant if something was going to one sibling, then something should realistically go to all siblings, although not necessarily the same 'percentage'.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 6, 2014 1:19:48 GMT -5
If your DD is a minor, almost everything SHOULD go to you/her, maybe a token to the Skids. There should NOT be an equal split between a dependent minor and independent adults. There should be no wanting an equal split between a dependent minor and independent adults, even if they were all the cuddliest kids ever. Trust should pay out until DD is 18 for support of the household, and at THAT time, if desired and if anything remains, four way split/dissolve. you seriously think a father should leave a 'token' amount to his kids from his first marriage in favor of his kid from his second marriage? don't we rip to shreds fathers who abandon their first family? Absolutely.... when those first "children" are already adults. He already 'raised' a first family. He needs to provide the financial resources to 'raise' the second. Some children get nothing when their parents pass (e.g. you shouldn't expect an inheritance). The fact that it is not distributed absolutely perfectly equally at the time of his death reflects the total lifetime cost of raising them. The adult children have already received enough resources to be fully functioning adults. Why shouldn't the minor child get the same benefit?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,082
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 6, 2014 13:11:44 GMT -5
you seriously think a father should leave a 'token' amount to his kids from his first marriage in favor of his kid from his second marriage? don't we rip to shreds fathers who abandon their first family? Absolutely.... when those first "children" are already adults. He already 'raised' a first family. He needs to provide the financial resources to 'raise' the second. Some children get nothing when their parents pass (e.g. you shouldn't expect an inheritance). The fact that it is not distributed absolutely perfectly equally at the time of his death reflects the total lifetime cost of raising them. The adult children have already received enough resources to be fully functioning adults. Why shouldn't the minor child get the same benefit? Depends on the circumstances. If the dad doesn't have a lot of money, then yes, his surviving dependent children should get the whole estate. However in this case it sounds like the dad is well off. Insurance will pay mom and youngest child 1 million, and they also inherit half the 401K money, which mom says is 'substantial.' I think dad should set some money aside for his adult children, especially if he has any hopes that they will reconnect with their half sister after his death.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Nov 6, 2014 13:29:40 GMT -5
Absolutely.... when those first "children" are already adults. He already 'raised' a first family. He needs to provide the financial resources to 'raise' the second. Some children get nothing when their parents pass (e.g. you shouldn't expect an inheritance). The fact that it is not distributed absolutely perfectly equally at the time of his death reflects the total lifetime cost of raising them. The adult children have already received enough resources to be fully functioning adults. Why shouldn't the minor child get the same benefit? Depends on the circumstances. If the dad doesn't have a lot of money, then yes, his surviving dependent children should get the whole estate. However in this case it sounds like the dad is well off. Insurance will pay mom and youngest child 1 million, and they also inherit half the 401K money, which mom says is 'substantial.' I think dad should set some money aside for his adult children, especially if he has any hopes that they will reconnect with their half sister after his death. Yes, but - - - to get back to the OP: the dad doesn't WANT to set aside anything for the kids in his "first family (now adults)." He is angry at them and tired of feeling used by them just for his money.
It is OP who is trying to arrange their Trust and Will in a way that passes money to the step kids - - but DH is balking. As a result, their future financial planning is stalled/in limbo right now.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,583
|
Post by giramomma on Nov 6, 2014 13:31:02 GMT -5
Depends on the circumstances. If the dad doesn't have a lot of money, then yes, his surviving dependent children should get the whole estate. However in this case it sounds like the dad is well off. Insurance will pay mom and youngest child 1 million, and they also inherit half the 401K money, which mom says is 'substantial.' I think dad should set some money aside for his adult children, especially if he has any hopes that they will reconnect with their half sister after his death. ETA: I had a whole post and I lost it. Basically, it's this. I don't get the bolded part. I think at some point I can reconnect with my parents. It's happened, a little. But, at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if I was written out of their will. The exchange of money does nothing to solve the root causes of behavior when dysfunction is present. My parents put money towards my college and wedding. I still was dysfunctional. My parents are still mentally ill and codependent with each other. I'll give you that money was the tool needed to buy services to make me healthier. But them cutting me a check wasn't enough. Also, speaking from experience. Sometimes folks are hell-bent in believing what they want to believe, even if it's not what happened. It's amazing what sort of assumptions can be made from a 2 second observation. And, then those assumptions are turned into gospel truth. OP could put the step kids in the will, and the step kids could deeply believe that their dad is awful. No amount of money is going to change that deep seeded belief. Heck, even reality including physical proof may not be enough to have them change their beliefs.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Nov 6, 2014 13:40:16 GMT -5
Depends on the circumstances. If the dad doesn't have a lot of money, then yes, his surviving dependent children should get the whole estate. However in this case it sounds like the dad is well off. Insurance will pay mom and youngest child 1 million, and they also inherit half the 401K money, which mom says is 'substantial.' I think dad should set some money aside for his adult children, especially if he has any hopes that they will reconnect with their half sister after his death. ETA: I had a whole post and I lost it. Basically, it's this. I don't get the bolded part. I think at some point I can reconnect with my parents. It's happened, a little. But, at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if I was written out of their will. The exchange of money does nothing to solve the root causes of behavior when dysfunction is present. My parents put money towards my college and wedding. I still was dysfunctional. My parents are still mentally ill and codependent with each other. I'll give you that money was the tool needed to buy services to make me healthier. But them cutting me a check wasn't enough. Also, speaking from experience. Sometimes folks are hell-bent in believing what they want to believe, even if it's not what happened. It's amazing what sort of assumptions can be made from a 2 second observation. And, then those assumptions are turned into gospel truth. OP could put the step kids in the will, and the step kids could deeply believe that their dad is awful. No amount of money is going to change that deep seeded belief. Heck, even reality including physical proof may not be enough to have them change their beliefs. *POTD*
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 13:40:55 GMT -5
I'm an adult with step parents. Honestly, I've never even thought about the inheritance thing. I always just assumed if my Mom died prior to stepdad everything would go to him and if Dad died before stepmom everything would go to her. Yeah, I do know I could get "screwed" if my parents were both the first to go and everything passed just to the step/half siblings after their mom or dad died, but I don't think I'll be deliberately left out, and we're not talking about millions here anyhow. The way my mom has been spending she'll probably be broke by 70. I do know that my Dad and stepmom did something where all three of us kid and my two boys get a cut if they are BOTH gone, but not before then.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 6, 2014 14:19:16 GMT -5
Depends on the circumstances. If the dad doesn't have a lot of money, then yes, his surviving dependent children should get the whole estate. However in this case it sounds like the dad is well off. Insurance will pay mom and youngest child 1 million, and they also inherit half the 401K money, which mom says is 'substantial.' I think dad should set some money aside for his adult children, especially if he has any hopes that they will reconnect with their half sister after his death. Yes, but - - - to get back to the OP: the dad doesn't WANT to set aside anything for the kids in his "first family (now adults)." He is angry at them and tired of feeling used by them just for his money.
It is OP who is trying to arrange their Trust and Will in a way that passes money to the step kids - - but DH is balking. As a result, their future financial planning is stalled/in limbo right now.
In our situation, it was like throwing an angry dog a bone in hopes that it wouldn't chew off your leg.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,082
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 6, 2014 16:48:10 GMT -5
Depends on the circumstances. If the dad doesn't have a lot of money, then yes, his surviving dependent children should get the whole estate. However in this case it sounds like the dad is well off. Insurance will pay mom and youngest child 1 million, and they also inherit half the 401K money, which mom says is 'substantial.' I think dad should set some money aside for his adult children, especially if he has any hopes that they will reconnect with their half sister after his death. ETA: I had a whole post and I lost it. Basically, it's this. I don't get the bolded part. I think at some point I can reconnect with my parents. It's happened, a little. But, at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if I was written out of their will. The exchange of money does nothing to solve the root causes of behavior when dysfunction is present. My parents put money towards my college and wedding. I still was dysfunctional. My parents are still mentally ill and codependent with each other. I'll give you that money was the tool needed to buy services to make me healthier. But them cutting me a check wasn't enough. Also, speaking from experience. Sometimes folks are hell-bent in believing what they want to believe, even if it's not what happened. It's amazing what sort of assumptions can be made from a 2 second observation. And, then those assumptions are turned into gospel truth. OP could put the step kids in the will, and the step kids could deeply believe that their dad is awful. No amount of money is going to change that deep seeded belief. Heck, even reality including physical proof may not be enough to have them change their beliefs. So I guess your argument is, since the oldest kids don't like dad and will always think he's awful, they should be punished by withholding money from them forever. That the amount of dad's money they should get from his will should be contingent on how much they adore him? See when it comes to an estate, I think kids should be treated equally, unless one of the kids is a minor, or handicapped in some way that would require them to need extra help throughout their lifetime. Unless a kid is an ax murderer, or some totally evil person, I'm not going to punish them by withholding part of my estate from them. I would want all my kids to benefit equally, and for their kids and families to benefit from what I worked hard to earn throughout my whole life - even if I wasn't on the best of terms with all my kids. I guess this is a sore point for me because in my family the youngest was my mom's clear favorite. She had unlimited supplies of attention, affection, approval and cash given to her. The rest of us were all disappointments, and one of them cut herself off from the family due to all the verbal and physical abuse my mom heaped on her when she was growing up. Yet when my dad made up their wills, he left his estate equally to all four of his kids, even the black sheep who hadn't been around to visit in years. If he left the estate planning to my mother, no doubt mom would have decided to leave most if not all of the estate to the youngest, her favorite child, the one that adored her - but would that be fair to the rest of us? And if I found out mom had cut me completely out of the will because I didn't suck up to her as well as the youngest did, how would that make me feel about my little sister? Should what you inherit be based on how obedient and adoring and groveling you are? (Anyone remember Cat on a Hot Tin Roof?) I understand why the dad doesn't want to have anything to do with his kids, and hopefully, over time, once the kids grow up more and get away from the awful influence of their mom, they will come to realize what a shitty thing mom did to them, and that their dad did always love them and want the best for them. But, should dad die suddenly tomorrow, I think he would regret (from the grave) that he cut his older kids completely out of the will. I know if I were him, I would. Parental love should not be tied to how willing your kids are to bow and scrape to you.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,519
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 6, 2014 16:54:29 GMT -5
I wouldn't agree to cutting the Skids out either. To me it's a knee jerk reaction on the part of her DH.
"They don't want a relationship with me, I will cut them out of my will ha ha!" It smacks of a bad soap opera plot.
I get that he'll be dead and won't care. And yes it's his money to do with as he pleases. But there are people who are going to have to live with his decisions after he's dead. I think for the sake of keeping doors open the Skids should be left something even if it's a token.
Then the ball is in their court.
Dad punishing them from the grave just reinforces bad feelings. IMO the door should at least be left open for the OP's daughter to have a relationship with her half siblings.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,752
|
Post by souldoubt on Nov 6, 2014 16:54:45 GMT -5
Considering what mm has said about the stepkids over the last so many months (multiple threads), the fact that they're adults who want nothing from him but money and the fact dad doesn't want to currently leave them anything I'd say that's reason enough not to include them for now. I see your point based on your own experience but you and your siblings were the odd ones out because mom adored the youngest which isn't the same as mm's stepkids wanting nothing to do with their dad. As far as I'm concerned nothing about an inheritance has to be fair. I'm not advocating giving it all to one child but it's up to whoever earned/saved/came into that money to do with it as they see fit. If they want to donate it all or give it to one child that's up to them and not the kids.
|
|
Works4me
Senior Member
Someone responded to your personal ad - a German Shepherd named Tara wants to have you for dinner...
Joined: May 5, 2012 12:11:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,530
|
Post by Works4me on Nov 6, 2014 17:11:12 GMT -5
One consideration that I see many people over look is the impact of the trauma of the death of their spouse. My cousin lost her beloved husband June of 2001 - he literally dropped dead of a heart attack in front of her, in their bedroom, in the middle of the night. She spent the first three months pretending nothing had happened, then the next six months crying before she realized that if she did not get it together their 3 year old child "would be royally screwed with no parents."Fortunately he was a very successful executive and she was well provided for plus she also has a degree and over ten years experience in a STEM field. My point is that, for what ever reason, it took her a very long time to recover from his death and she has openly admitted that there was no way she could have returned to work immediately following his death.
If you can easily afford it, my thoughts are 50% to you with the other 50% being divided among his three children. As far as being able to live easily and comfortably on a limited income, as a truly single parent there is no such thing as running out to the store for milk after the kid is asleep or even going to the doctor without childcare.
The other thing that I see as being important us that, at least for now, the children be treated equally. If something were to happen to him now, there is no way that the skids would be happy or even feel like they got an equal share so all that matters is that you Arel happy with the arrangements. At a later date, you can always make changes.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Nov 6, 2014 17:29:58 GMT -5
Anyway - that is the hierarchy of priorities my family adheres to - minor children, spouse, adult children. I very (very) respectfully disagree.
*Unless* the mother is a deadbeat substance abuser or is physically or psychiatrically incapable of raising the minor child(ren), priority of financial succession *in a legal marriage, in a community property state* should be: spouse, minor child(ren), adult child(ren).
There's an old cliché out there we employ actively in the cat rescue community: the very best way to care for babies is to take care of their mother. If she is healthy and competent they will thrive, period. I think the same axiom applies to humans. However, I know that YMMV.
If OP were to lose her spouse in an untimely manner (anytime soon, or sometime in the future but still with a minor child) I do not believe her hands should be tied (or foreshortened) by divvying out community property money to the next generation while she still has a child to raise. Everything in that marriage (that [obviously] is not explicitly excluded in writing or by some legal means) belongs to her, and I think she should stand up for herself and claim it while they are in the process of putting their plans together. I don't believe she should be giving away money too soon, especially not to placate resentful siblings - - I believe she should have her Will (and/or Trust) state that in the event of his death first, she inherits everything; and then when SHE passes on their Will can stipulate who will get it (and at that point, I DO believe the step kids SHOULD be included). But if he dies and leaves her with an underage child, she has the right and should have the freedom to conduct her family life as she sees fit. That is what most often happens in a intact family (the kids wait until both parents are gone); why should she see her financial stability potentially foreshortened merely because she is a second wife they resent?
Just my two cents.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Nov 6, 2014 17:36:00 GMT -5
I'm not saying she should cut the skids out, but more that she shouldn't be giving away her retirement unless she has a fairly certain way to replace it. If she stays home long enough, there's a good chance she'd be starting over at the bottom on the ladder. Which would make it harder to replace a substantial sum.
I'd be more inclined to give a set amount from the life insurance, say 50k each or something. She'd live off what was left of the insurance and leave the entire 401k in the spousal one so she'll have retirement money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 17:39:50 GMT -5
Their father doesn't want to leave them anything at this point so just follow that. If he changes his mind later then you can adjust. From your previous posts they sound like ungreatful brats anyway. Don't stres over it. Your responsibility is to your minor child, therefore you need to make sure YOU are taken care of. His adults kids are not your problem.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 6, 2014 17:53:21 GMT -5
I think you are being smart making sure the step-kids are not cut out. If for no other reasons than I think it may help things if the worse does happen. Given how money focused they are right now if something did happen then I could see them taking it to the courts.
I am an adult, and to be honest, I would horribly hurt if my dad left everything to my step-mother and cut my brother and I out of his will. And it's not about the money so much but more the fact that I would have a parent who didn't want me to have anything of theirs after they were gone. Obviously, I think having a minor child does make a huge difference. You have to enough for you to raise your child, but I do think planning to leave something to all the children is a good idea, especially when you and your husband already have a very complicated relationship with his older children.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 6, 2014 19:57:59 GMT -5
I had two kids so no stepkids issue. Even then I willed the majority of my money to the last one because the oldest one was out of college by then. I also told him about it and said it wouldn't go back to 50-50 until she was out of college. Whether he liked it or not, that was fair. You have no idea what college will cost, what expenses there will be, what taxes or health care will cost. EVERYTHING should come to you right now. If your DD gets to college or out of it and your DH is still alive, then change things to make them for fair but until your last child is on her own, your and your DHs obligation is to her, and to you as surviving spouse. btw, don't worry about making stepkids wait until you die, period.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 6, 2014 20:06:53 GMT -5
Well, funny enough, DF and I were discussing this tonight because I am sure, based on how his bio child behaves, that she will start legal shit if he dies before me. He is planning on handling it by having his will read that if anyone challenges the will, the other two don't inherit either. By this he hopes that the greedy older two will pressure the vindictive bio to leave me alone after he dies or risk them losing their share as well. I still think she will start shit and could care less that one, she will lose, and two, she will cost the other two their inheritance as well. For her, revenge is worth it. Plus, mommy still has 5 million for the kids to inherit, they just have to wait 20 some odd years to get it!! but I agree with some of the posters here. His duty is to you and the minor child. Once she is no longer a dependent, things can be changed and should be, perhaps.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Nov 6, 2014 20:14:11 GMT -5
Well, funny enough, DF and I were discussing this tonight because I am sure, based on how his bio child behaves, that she will start legal shit if he dies before me. He is planning on handling it by having his will read that if anyone challenges the will, the other two don't inherit either. By this he hopes that the greedy older two will pressure the vindictive bio to leave me alone after he dies or risk them losing their share as well. I still think she will start shit and could care less that one, she will lose, and two, she will cost the other two their inheritance as well. For her, revenge is worth it. Plus, mommy still has 5 million for the kids to inherit, they just have to wait 20 some odd years to get it!! but I agree with some of the posters here. His duty is to you and the minor child. Once she is no longer a dependent, things can be changed and should be, perhaps. Why not just write it that anyone who challenges it gets nothing? I wouldn't want to punish some kids because they can't control their grown bitchy sister.
|
|
lynnerself
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 11:42:29 GMT -5
Posts: 4,166
|
Post by lynnerself on Nov 6, 2014 20:18:48 GMT -5
I had two kids so no stepkids issue. Even then I willed the majority of my money to the last one because the oldest one was out of college by then. I also told him about it and said it wouldn't go back to 50-50 until she was out of college. Whether he liked it or not, that was fair. You have no idea what college will cost, what expenses there will be, what taxes or health care will cost. EVERYTHING should come to you right now. If your DD gets to college or out of it and your DH is still alive, then change things to make them for fair but until your last child is on her own, your and your DHs obligation is to her, and to you as surviving spouse. btw, don't worry about making stepkids wait until you die, period. Why would you will the majority to your youngest? Why wouldn't your will set up a trust to pay for all her expenses and at a certain age everything left will then be split 50/50. Or is that what you meant?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 20:23:17 GMT -5
Moneymom, FWIW, I think you're doing the right thing to be concerned about this and to think about leaving at least some of your DH's estate to your stepkids. From what I have seen on this board, there is nothing more likely to set people off and cause conflict than being unfair.
This said, your DD IS minor, and very much so. But kudos to you for trying to find a fair solution / compromise.
I don't know much about trusts, but one thing to remember is, your steps will also (perhaps) inherit from their mom and / or her family. I know that's something we have taken into consideration. I live in France, which follows Napoleonic law. So in short, you CANNOT disinherit your child, even if you want to. You can ONLY give more to a child if they are disabled, and only with the other siblings' agreement. Obviously there are ways around that, but those are the basic laws.
The other thing to keep in mind is, a will can, and should, be changed / updated as time goes on. I have 4 kids, DH and I have one, but he raised my older 3. We first did our wills nearly 10 years ago when we got married. (We did everything backwards; I got pregnant, he moved in, we bought the house, then we got married LOL.) In those days we had one (barely) adult child (he had just turned 18, in his first year of college) and 3 minors, and we willed everything to each other.
Two months ago we went back to our lawyer to update our wills. This time, I'm leaving all the property to my 4 kids, but DH has a life annuity on everything we own. Our kids could NOT "kick him out of the house" even if they wanted to. (I know they would never do that, but who knows who they might end up with one day?) DH's new will leaves me life annuity on everything, half of his estate, and half to our son, with me as executor. DH also wanted to leave some to my 3 older kids but the lawyer pointed out they are not "technically" his so they will pay a lot in taxes. She suggested DH take out another life insurance policy for them so he can gift them something tax-free. He is planning to do that but he hasn't done it yet.
We still have to write up the new wills though ... I'm planning to do that this weekend (I have a few days off).
ETA: And I would ABSOLUTELY continue looking for someone who "gets you" and what you're trying to do. Things are structured differently here, I know. The woman I call our "RE lawyer" is in fact an "estate planning lawyer" so she deals with RE, trusts, wills and inheritances. We absolutely adore her! She "gets us", she always understands what our needs are at a given point in time, and then she gives us a timeline / conditions as to when we need to rethink things and go back. I told her I wanted us both to leave our estates to our own children. She said NO WAY, and explained why DH needed to leave half of his estate to me (because DS3 is minor) and half to him. And she gave us the next timeline to go back ... in 5 years, when DS3 has hopefully graduated from college. She's also very accessible by phone or email.
Good luck!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 0:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 20:48:32 GMT -5
One more thing, Moneymom ... 10 years ago when we first did our wills we named DH's cousin (more like a brother to DH) in England to take DS3 (our son) if anything happened to us. DS3 loves him and his family dearly, but I'm sure DS3 would NOT be happy to suddenly be sent to England in the middle of 11th grade if something happened to us now, Gd forbid. So we are rewriting that too (we are leaving the oldest sibling responsible for DS3's finances, and leaving his 2 oldest siblings responsible for the decision on where / with whom DS3 would live.) This too is probably something that needs to be revisited every 5 years or so. At 6, going to DH's cousins in England would have been best for him. At 11, I'm not sure. At 16, definitely not, he would be much happier staying at school and living with a sibling if that were feasible, or (more likely for logistical reasons) with one of his two best friends. So it really is something that changes over time, and you need to keep that in mind.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,082
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 7, 2014 8:10:57 GMT -5
Their father doesn't want to leave them anything at this point so just follow that. If he changes his mind later then you can adjust. From your previous posts they sound like ungreatful brats anyway. Don't stres over it. Your responsibility is to your minor child, therefore you need to make sure YOU are taken care of. His adults kids are not your problem. I think this is a terrible situation in which no one is really acting very well, but the two people I blame the least for this mess is the two older step kids. I don't blame them for acting like brats. Dad and exwife started this by getting married and having the two kids. I always think it's funny when people get divorced and after the fact announce that their Ex was a devil she-bitch. Yeah, but she was the devil-she bitch you decided to marry and spawn children with. If she was as bad as you say she is, you should have kept it in your pants. You didn't, and you have two kids with this she-bitch, so now it's on you and the she-bitch to make it work as co-parents. The ex-wife does sound like a real winner - I think she deserves a good 60% of the blame, because she's been apparently telling her kids for years that their dad only cares about his new wife and new kid. Daddy doesn't love you, because if he did he'd buy you a car, etc etc. Ex wife seems bitter, resentful, and money hungry. But dad isn't absolved from blame, either. He's the adult in this situation. When his two kids started acting bratty due to the propaganda ex-wife was loading them up with, dad could have calmly, patiently ignored their bad behavior and demonstrated to them the truth - that he does love them and he does want the best for them. Teens have melt downs and act like brats at times, especially teens squeezed between two unhappy parents. It's up to the parents to be the better person, ignore the nasty words and to keep reaching out to his kids. Instead, dad seems to have taken the childish position of 'if you don't like me, I won't do squat for you, so there!' and that's on him, so I give him 30% of the blame. These are his kids, he needs to work harder for them, not walk away from them. That leaves 10% of the blame for the kids, and that's because they're kids. They're half baked at this point. Their mom is apparently skillful at playing the 'poor poor me' card on her kids, and the kids aren't mature enough at this point to see through the bullshit. To them, it seems that everything their mom said about their dad has been right - dad doesn't love them, dad only cares about his new wife and new child. Hopefully, once they get older and get some distance from Mom they will see just how toxic she has been, and be able to come back around to mend fences with dad (if he's a big enough person to let them). It's a mess, and I hope it can be salvaged, but I think the chances are low at this point, but I'm not willing to lay the blame on the bratty kids - their parents made them that way.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Nov 7, 2014 8:19:00 GMT -5
I wouldn't agree to cutting the Skids out either. To me it's a knee jerk reaction on the part of her DH. "They don't want a relationship with me, I will cut them out of my will ha ha!" It smacks of a bad soap opera plot. I get that he'll be dead and won't care. And yes it's his money to do with as he pleases. But there are people who are going to have to live with his decisions after he's dead. I think for the sake of keeping doors open the Skids should be left something even if it's a token. Then the ball is in their court. Dad punishing them from the grave just reinforces bad feelings. IMO the door should at least be left open for the OP's daughter to have a relationship with her half siblings. I realize that this statement is quite presumptuous but, I'm so proud of you. So often, you paint yourself as someone who has a tough viewpoint. Not this time Drama.......your post was sensitive and very insightful.....exactly what I was thinking. Well stated.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 7, 2014 9:32:06 GMT -5
Yup, I insisted that DF leave everything after me, in thirds. Equal to all three kids, even the former stepkids. He had left 75 per cent to bio and 12 1/2 to each former step kid. I told him he wasn't leaving me to clean up that mess and that he called those stepkids his kids and he called their children his grandchildren, so in my mind and it should be in his, equal. Now on the other hand, they aren't getting anything until I die because he/we have no idea what is going to come health wise or tax wise or anything. If my son doesn't send me to the pond to drown, I could be in a nursing home sucking away money. I don't want to be in a nasty one, not that any of them are nice but still..... I don't want to sit in my shit for 8 hours or eat when someone gets around to feeding me.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Nov 7, 2014 9:51:29 GMT -5
I think the relationship problems are a red herring and are distracting OP from the core issue. It doesn't matter if the DH has a fabulous relationship with his adult kids or a horrible relationship. The point of a 401k is to support OP in retirement. The point of life insurance is to help OP get back on her feet if the DH dies. Money should not be left to any of the kids (whether minor or adult). Now, if the DH does die and the OP feels comfortable with her finances and wants to gift some money (to all three kids equally IMO), then sure go for it. But that is a secondary concern and is a pointless discussion now.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 7, 2014 10:28:30 GMT -5
The reason I left more to my one child who was still dependent and less to the one who wasn't was because she would need more to finish than he did because he was finished. There's a big difference in ages between them. He was an adult on his own when she was still in high school. It's fair now but they both know that I have the mind set of doing for them NOW as opposed to when I die.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,082
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 7, 2014 10:54:33 GMT -5
I think the relationship problems are a red herring and are distracting OP from the core issue. It doesn't matter if the DH has a fabulous relationship with his adult kids or a horrible relationship. The point of a 401k is to support OP in retirement. The point of life insurance is to help OP get back on her feet if the DH dies. Money should not be left to any of the kids (whether minor or adult). Now, if the DH does die and the OP feels comfortable with her finances and wants to gift some money (to all three kids equally IMO), then sure go for it. But that is a secondary concern and is a pointless discussion now. I agree - the wife should initially inherit the bulk of the estate to take care of herself and her dependant child. Perhaps, depending on the amount of money she inherits, she could gift all three kids with some token amount for now, and then divide her estate between the three of them when she passes. My comments were directed more to the people who felt like the step kids were behaving badly and should be completely written out of the will, never to inherit a thin dime from their dad.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 7, 2014 11:03:11 GMT -5
Yup, even though bio DD has behaved abominably, she shouldn't be cut out, although DF says if she doesn't straighten out at some point, he will leave her share to her kids and bypass her entirely. His money, his choice. She's not that stupid though. She's seeing him this weekend again for brunch. She can bring her fiancé but I'm not to be there, of course.
|
|