Wills and Children

I debated putting this in this forum. I am afraid that since not everyone will even look in the parenting section that I will get minimal responce. I need all takes on this issue. It is a sticky one.

We are going through the process of doing our wills. I know what I want so that part shouldn't be so hard.

Here's the stumbling stone we are at:

My husband has 4 kids. 2 from a previous relationship. Both girls. Then my 2. My oldest being from a previous relationship and then our 1 together. His, mine and ours.

Most people are stunned when they find out that my oldest is not my husband bio-son. We don't advertise and we have been together long enough that no one really realizes it.

So, the problem is this. How do we split the estate?

Should it be 25% each kid?

Totally non-bias?

Or should it be that each girl get half of 25% and each boy gets the split between 75%?

I lean towards the boys getting the much larger percent. Not only because they are mine but becuase these assets are all accrued together with my husband. None of comes from his ex. We collectively owned nothing when we started out.

My boys have no family, where as the girls have his family and her family and her man's family, all contributing to their savings, and college accounts. My kids don't even have accounts. As of this moment.

My man has paid every cent towards his child support responsibilites and then some. This has taken away from our ability to put money away for our kids. I do realize he must pay for his kids. Had to say that so no one thinks I am saying he shouldn't. We don't complain. It is a blessing to have his girls. It is another can of worms though.

So, we don't know what to do about this. I think my boys should get more and I think he thinks that to but doesnt' want to look like the bad guy. Fact of the matter is, is his daughters have more then my boys will ever have even if we gave the whole farm to them.

What to do, what to do?

~Jenna

:eek: OY... what a quandry!!

I, myself, seeing and reading about a good many similar scenarios in the industry I work in (you do know, this is what we do here, right? Estate planning and all that??).. I would honestly be inclined to go with a fair and equal split.

The reason is not based on what they got or didn't get (the equality of that is truly debatable... your sons might not have college funds, but his daughters don't have HIM. Yes, due to the ex being a miserable person, but those girls have gotten a lifetime of punishment being stuck WITH HER!) while your husband was working his butt off to ensure they were all okay.

What matters is how you leave the family dynamic after you pass. If you leave the girls less, they will never understand. No matter how you try to word it or justify it. It will be a stab in their heart. Their mother has done everything in her power to keep them from their Dad. You know that this is truly rotten for them, despite the money and the extra people and all that.

The best thing to do to ensure the siblings (and they ARE all siblings) can continue to get along and be friendly towards eachother is to give them all equal shares of the estate. NOT playing favorites, NOT weighing out a lifetime of advantages and disadvantages.

Just split it equal and call it a day and know you've done the best you can by all of them, circumstances considered.

Otherwise, you run the risk of alienating the girls from their brothers or putting the brothers in a position of feeling guilty.
~phos

I am with Fos on this one.
I wont say more or i'll put my foot in my mouth.

When my ex and I made our wills, he and I agreed to make it all even for our children (our three together and his oldest who lives with his ex).

He also did the same when he took out life insurance.

If I die, my portion of our assets becomes his. If he dies, it becomes mine. If we both die, then our children are to be looked after by his sister and she receives 75% of the breakdown of the assets. His other child's mother receives 25% of the breakdown of his and my assets.

We felt it was the right thing to do, to make sure that ALL of our children were given equal rights to our joint assets if we both died.

BTW, if only he dies then his half of our assets become mine and his life insurance will pay for the house and I become responsible for payments to his ex and their child.

Not to change the subject, but, hey, Phos, did ya'll go to that seminar called "Who Gets Grandma's Pie Plate"? The boss sent my assistant and I earlier this year, it's just amazing what people will do when it's time to address probate. . .

That said, Lovey, listen to Phos, she's the expert on the topic around here. But, I'd like to add, as my boss does a lot of EP too, just be careful, because if, heaven forbid, you both pass away before the exwife does? There needs to be something in the wills that will stop her from interfering with the girls and trying to convince them to contest the equal split or cause problems for the other children. Make sure your Personal Representative is somebody you both know well and trust, somebody with no ties to the exwife whatsoever.

Last year we had a case where an exwife convinced one of the sons upon the death of his father that his half-siblings didn't deserve anything because they came from "the other wife". Mind you, this son was 35, was basically raised by the stepmother and before his father's death was very close to her. The second the father was gone, that gave the exwife an open door to do some dirty work and she took full advantage of it. The really sad thing is that this group was one of those "happy" divorces, so to speak. Everybody got along great, there were supposedly no hard feelings - but then the husband died and it took us ten months to get it all worked out and the family ended up totally torn apart and fighting with each other. Pick and choose your PR very wisely.

Okay, I don't know what I am going to do. I worked it out with someone last night and there is only a few things I can do. All work out to the girls not getting the same as the boys.

Here's why, should my husband go before they are 18 I am legally responsible for all debts. That includes the child support. Which as it stands right now, there would be just enough to cover another 8 years for both kids. Leaving nothing for my kids at all. Okay, here's the thing I could almost pay that debt with the life insurance. Sell the rrsp's and I could do it.

That leaves the business, which I would hope to run on my own. And the house which I would continue to live in. The ex couldn't make me sell the house but she can make me sell the business and if it turns out to be more than what he should have been paying in child support all those years then she is entitled to that money to the tune of what would be owed her. Not the kids, her.

The other thing is, the court order that is in place right now, does not specify an end date or age to that child support. So, if those girls decide to live at home forever the child support is owed forever. Unless we go back to court and get an exact age. Which opens another can of worms. She will then be told how much our business makes and that she is entitled to the cost of living accordingly to what the business makes. Which would put us out of business, and leave us on the hook for that amount. The courts go by gross income not net. As a side note: this business we started well after the seperation of my husband and his ex.

I am not trying to be a step-monster but I do have to look out for my kids. That is my job. Regardless of who had kids first. Mine come first.

If it were cut and dry, I wouldn't have needed to ask. But now I see that I jumped the gun on it and there is so much behind it all that I couldn't possibly have explained it all here.

I know one thing that is cut and dry. The trust I leave for my kids guardians will be more than what the girls get, my boys are younger then they are and that makes more expences right off the hop. Plus the meds for my oldest need to be paid for and that is not a small sum either. No insurance for that. Can't get it either.

I am trying to come up with a reasonable conclusion. I am not worried about family dynamics, they are not there.

~Jenna

Well, laws apparently are vastly different between the US and Canada in regards to child support. Why would YOU be responsible for supporting HIS children from a former marriage who HAVE a mother if he died? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and I hope you will get a second opinion for a qualified lawyer in estate planning and family law. That's simply absurd.

I know for a fact that if something had happened to my ex, his son would simply go live with his mother and I would have absolutely no rights OR obligations where he is concerned. The insurance proceeds would go to whoever was listed as his beneficiaries.

So, you really need to sit down with another legal counsel who deals in these areas and find out why it is you were told YOU would be responsible for paying HIS child support once he died. That's got to be wrong. I can't see that standing up in any court of law.

Also, I don't see how the EX wife would have any rights to his business after his death, either. Those are "separate" assets and were not accumulated during their marriage.

Seek counsel with a qualified lawyer, Jenna. Cuz none of what you said makes a lick of sense. If HE dies, all of his assets should automatically go to YOU, as his wife. His child support obligations CEASE upon death, at least here they do.

This is taken from a "generic" Child Support agreement typically used here in the States.

CHILD SUPPORT: Husband shall pay to Wife and for child support of (childs name), the sum of $ per month for [insert specifics here], commencing on (date of agreement), and payable no later than the third day of each and every month thereafter until further of the Court, (child’s name) eighteenth (18th) birthday, her death or death of Husband, whichever shall first occur, except that support shall continue to be paid after her eighteenth birthday if she is a full-time high school student, non self-supporting and living in the home of the party receiving support,
then until she reaches the age of nineteen or graduates from high school, whichever comes first.

And I would seriously have your husband pursue having a set DATE (18) inserted into his agreement which identifies when they are no longer legally considered "children." I will be seriously surprised if your province doesn't already HAVE a set date like 18 already identified in statutes.

Get a GOOD lawyer. Whoever you're getting your information from strikes me as suspect... either that or Canada has some seriously BACKWARDS and ridiculous laws.

Have YOU sat down and READ his custody agreement? Just curious. You can always email it to me.
~phos

I am not worried about family dynamics, they are not there.

As our attorneys very thoughtfully informed us, the dynamics aren't there *now* because there's nothing to argue over while you're both still alive.

More in a bit...

No advice here....just had to say GOOD GRIEF :eek: though!! This is all so complicated - I feel for you Jenna! ;)

Thinking about this a bit, it's probably best if I keep my big mouth shut...

THANK-YOU CHURBINO!!! That I think just answered every moral issue and mother issue I had.

Now, as for this childsupport issue. THANK-YOU phossy :D and everyone else who thinks it is a screwed up family courts here in Canada. I know it is a screwed up system. Fos, remember her trying to take my house a few years ago? She was and is entitled to it. I am at the 3rd lawyer who has told me what I posted above. 2 of them were and are top family law lawyers in my city. Plus I have read and read and read and tried to get around it, hence the hiring of a lawyer. I thought for sure I was reading it wrong :eek: I am not wrong and didn't read it wrong, IT is just wrong. I even had a lawyer refuse to help us becuase of the circumstances.

As for her entitlement upon his death? He doesn't even need to be dead people!! She gets wind that we make more money then he did when they were together she can waltz right in and demand half. Period. Closing the business does not mean automatic drop either, we would still be on the hook for whatever judgement was granted when the business was open. We could apply for "undo" hardships" but wouldn't win it becuase no matter what we could pay that amount it is just that my kids would starve. My kids are not taken into his consideration in the courts processes with her.

So, this is why we don't go back and ask for a exact time of childsupport responsibilites to end. Or for the courts to uphold the custody agreement. Can't afford to.

We are going to put the company in my name and have him as an employee. Because I have children she can't touch me. But get this, if I didn't have children and did have a job she could ask me for support money. And the man she lives with now? He became responsible to pay child support for those girls, the minute he assumed the father role. He did that by moving in.

Does anyone see the stress? I assume all finicial responsiblity when I married him, and vice versa. I am on the hook to pay any outstanding credit cards, taxes, everything.

This is Canada and it wasn't alway like this. This came out of vindictive women exacting revenge on all ex's. They fought for all these rights and it came into effect as of January 1st 1998. My husband was served with papers January 3rd 1998 the first day the court was in session after the hollidays. How convientent eh?

I don't think that my kids getting more would hurt his daughters. I think they are understandin young ladies and I KNOW they are OUTSTANDING young ladies, but it is the mother who has poisoned them thus far, who would influence them to contest. I know it with every fibre of my being. Plus the examples she has shown over the past 9 years of just what kind of person she is.

~Jenna

As for him being served his court papers on the 3rd of January. I would like to point out how cold and calculated this move was.

Her lawyer told her to wait until these new laws came in to effect. No doubt about that.

They split the April before. So almost a year. He started paying for his kids from day one. Plus her phone bill and furniture bill. The furniture was a bed which he wasn't even sleeping in!! (if you catch my meaning).

During courts she did screw herself though. She claimed he hadn't paid a cent for the girls EVER!! Imagine when he turned up with cancelled cheques? So, it ended up that he pay alittle less than what he was on his own and she had to foot her own bills. Serves her right. But she will do whatever to get what she wants. That is only a mild example of the stunts she's tried to pull.

~Jenna

Oh, the custody agreement is exactly this:

the two children (names of kids) shall live with their mother(her name)

The father (his name) shall have visitation everyother week-end

He (the fathers name) is required to pay x amount monthly.

The father shall have vistitation everyother christmas

The father shall have visitation on father's day.

That's it, nothing else. Really poorly done.

No, dates as to what years we would have christmas with them. And that is very important as we learned :mad:

Small things that one is able to twist. But the order is very vague. Very poorly done. But at the time I had no say in it as I was not there. Believe me it would have been very specific.

~Jenna

Well, I think NOT revisiting this issue will be more detrimental to the two of you in the long run and you need to find that ONE saavy, brilliant lawyer who will absolutely go to bat for you and get everything in writing crystal clear.

And your man should be fighting for his visitation, too. And be taking HER back to court every time she refuses him visitation!

I'd definitely put the business over into your name. Protect your guys as much as you can. And... put a little more thought into considering coming to be MY neighbor, like I keep tellin' ya. LOL.

~phos

Now, you know I would be there in a flash!! Don't tease me!!!!

Wouldn't help in this issue anyways. The jurisdiction belongs to wherever the kids are. Not where the dad is. So if we were there the law goes according to where the kids live. If they lived in the states then it would work for us :D

Can I send you my ex? Yes, I consider her my ex too.

~Jenna

Well, laws apparently are vastly different between the US and Canada in regards to child support. Why would YOU be responsible for supporting HIS children from a former marriage who HAVE a mother if he died?

Personally, my ex's ex is on social services, welfare, has no job. He is obligated to pay child support until the child is 18 or finished university, regardless of where he lives.

If my ex dies, HIS portion of our assets is divided however he chooses but I am obligated to provide a portion of his assets to his ex and their child due to the fact that she is living off the government.

He's generously offered more than what would be legally obligated and I think that's wonderful, but if she was not on welfare then I believe it would be a matter we would have to settle in court. As it is, it's cut and dried.

Charlotte, just another shining example of what Canada does to screw itself. I am in Ontario, and the welfare system is even more how to say it? Not right? Don't get me wrong, I have collected it, but I viewed as a safety net not a hammock in which we swing from for years and years. Whole different subject again.

I am slowly working my way through this mess. Thanks to everyone here listening to me, if not always agreeing. Or even understanding my mess or my countries laws.

~Jenna

Charlotte, just another shining example of what Canada does to screw itself. I am in Ontario, and the welfare system is even more how to say it? Not right? Don't get me wrong, I have collected it, but I viewed as a safety net not a hammock in which we swing from for years and years. Whole different subject again.

I am slowly working my way through this mess. Thanks to everyone here listening to me, if not always agreeing. Or even understanding my mess or my countries laws.

~Jenna

I am also in Ontario. I too have needed to supplement my income with welfare but this woman, my ex's ex, she's been on welfare for a decade :| It's ridiculous.

She sits at home all day while her kid is in school and acts sorry for herself because she apparently can't find a job and look after a kid at the same time. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. She only has one child, who is 9 years old and in school full time!

Ridiculous!

When I was on it, I had it as my only income from the time I was 3 months pregnant until my son was nearly two.

When I started looking I did find a job withing 2 weeks. It was paying enough to support myself alone but you know what? I saw it as atleast I was working for that welfare cheque!!

When I got a better paying job my son had developed some health issues and his meds are outrageously expensive so I had the supplelmental welfare to help pay for that. But he had to have those meds and again I WAS WORKING. There is a big difference.

I know that she could apply for afterschool programs to help with the before and afterschool time gaps. If her son is not sick, she shouldn't have a problem. I lost plenty a job becuase my son gets so sick he is in hospital. I take the time off. Just the way it is. If he had the flu? That would be a different story, I wouldn't take time off for that unless I had to.

I think our welfare system only aids people into the dark tunel of the black cycle. You get hand outs not hand ups and you get stuck spiraling out of control until you are frightned to leave!! Oh, god that brings back bad depression memories.

What I don't understand with her is, why since this child started school full time that the welfare isn't demanding she do something to get off? I had to get a job or go to school, even though I was only having supplemental cheques? Has she gone to school all these years? They do offer decent seminars and what not to help you get a job. They do provide transpertation costs if you ask and prove it. I don't get it.

I would be giving her what is required and the rest goes into a trust for the son. She can't touch it and that's that. Then you know for certain that he (the son gets something for education or whatever).

But not its not always a blessing to have one that works. Just makes them more greedy. His ex has always made considerably more than he did. Except for the past 2 years. If you don't count her new spouses income which puts there income well into "comfortable". The new spouse get all the privledge of daddy, and will also be on the hook for the support. But, that said it doesn't stop her from trying to gouge my man for every penny she can. I think it is wrong for the new spouse to pay a cent towards these kids. But at the same time he does nothing to stop her from keeping these kids away from us. So, really? Unless he comes to his sences? Serves him right.

I hear ya!! I hear ya!!
~Jenna

Charlotte, did you know that her the average welfare reciepient revcieves each income tax return of 400 a year plus the baby bonus? Plus the gst cheque? Nice huh? I dont' even know what a gst cheque looks like and my baby bonus is 26.75 a month!! Why bother?

Out in bc the welfare recipients don't get a thing in income tax return.NADDA!! This is why bc is not broke and our doc's are moving there. Money to pay the doctors.

Just thought I'd stick that in there. Cuz I shouldn't be alone in this either :D

~Jenna

When I started looking I did find a job withing 2 weeks. It was paying enough to support myself alone but you know what? I saw it as atleast I was working for that welfare cheque!!

Same here. I worked AND received welfare because I didn't make enough to support my husband and I at the time.

What I don't understand with her is, why since this child started school full time that the welfare isn't demanding she do something to get off?

I'm not entirely sure why she hasn't been forced to take a job. She has taken some school courses. I don't talk with her much anymore (she's 300km away) so it's a bit of a mystery to me.

I'm glad you're managing to sort through some of your legal business. It really makes a difference to have a plan. My grandfather, back in the day, used to be executor for people who died intestate. I don't want some complete stranger taking responsibility for my assets and children when I die!