• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Support as Obligation of Estate

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Melody70

Junior Member
My ex is ordered to pay just over $1000/mo for one child.. believe me, I have no sympathy in that regard.

That new law is great, because believe it or not, if your husband dies, his child still needs to eat and live. I almost wish ALL states did something similiar. Think of it this way. You still want to be supported if your husband dies (in the way of life insurance), why doesn't the child deserve the same? That IS his flesh and blood. You're just the woman he married. (not to sound harsh, but that is the reality of it all).
Why can't she pay for her own policy to protect herself, if they aren't that expensive she should be able to do it. Not to sound mean or anything. I know now that it isn't an option because of the new law.

Also wouldn't social security cover the childs needs?
 


Melody,

The law does NOT say that they will be given everything. And the odds are that your husband probably won't be killed today.

Now that the law is in effect - anyone with child support obligations in Texas will have to consider that in their Estate planning.

There is a chance that SOMEONE who is affected by this law will die today unprepared. However MOST people will have time to prepare. And actually, because of Social Security, employer benefits, etc - MOST people already ARE prepared.

AND -- I don't think the law will actually AFFECT that many people. It DOES take into consideration the amount the child will recieve from Social Security and OTHER resources. So MOST children whose parent dies before they reach age 18 WILL be taken care of through the AVAILABLE resources.

This law PROTECTS those children who are NOT provided for in other ways. If the parent dies - and there are NOT enough OTHER resources to take care of the child until age 18 - AND the Estate has funds to take care of the child - THEN the child will recieve the funds from the Estate to cover their support.

Is it fair? I think it is.

The law clearly states how they calcualte the support, what they take into consideration in deciding if the child's needs will be met, etc.

I considered your initial question to be a valid concern.

But the concern over what would happen if your husband died today, before you have a chance to buy life insurance, is a bit dramatic.

You husband might not even NEED Life Insurance for this - as based on the law - much of the support obligation will already be met through other means. (Social Security, etc.)

Free

Yes a life insurance policy does sound like a good idea. But still this just came into effect and what if for some reason he died in accident today? We only have one life insurance policy right now and it wouldn't cover $150,000.

Would it be fair if they got everything and it left my son and I with nothing. Something that my husband and I both work for.

I know what it is like to be a single mother I was one for 17 years. I never married until my oldest was 17 and middle son was 14. Both of my exes had gotten married and each had one more child.
 
I don't think the law would expect your husband's ex to pay for life insurance to cover HIS support obligation. And yes, Social Security WOULD cover some of the child's needs - which is WHY the court takes THAT (AND OTHER resources) into account BEFORE ordering child support from the Estate.

I covered that in several posts - including the one where I pasted the law:


(c) For purposes of this section, the court of continuing
jurisdiction shall determine the amount of the unpaid child support
obligation for each child of the deceased obligor. In determining
the amount of the unpaid child support obligation, the court shall
consider all relevant factors, including:

(4) the nature and amount of any benefit to which the
child would be entitled as a result of the obligor's death,
including life insurance proceeds, annuity payments, trust
distributions, social security death benefits, and retirement
survivor benefits; and

(5) any other financial resource available for the
support of the child.

(d) If, after considering all relevant factors, the court
finds that the child support obligation has been satisfied, the
court shall render an order terminating the child support
obligation.
If the court finds that the child support obligation is
not satisfied, the court shall render a judgment in favor of the
obligee, for the benefit of the child, in the amount of the unpaid
child support obligation determined under Subsection (c). The
order must designate the obligee as constructive trustee, for the
benefit of the child, of any money received in satisfaction of the
judgment.

Why can't she pay for her own policy to protect herself, if they aren't that expensive she should be able to do it. Not to sound mean or anything. I know now that it isn't an option because of the new law.

Also wouldn't social security cover the childs needs?
 

Melody70

Junior Member
I know, I'm just a little frustrated because this law doesn't consider that there is another child. It should be equal for all the children. And I hate it when people throw up the fact that the other child was first. My other two sons were the first but I would feel terrible for taking anything from their little sisters, or anything that their moms worked for.

As for Social Security it would be a good size amount but I don't think it would cover the whole $800 a month.

We will be checking into term life insurance this week. I know my husband has a good chance of not dying today I was just using that as a scenerio (sp).
 
Most child support laws are based on the idea that the first child comes first. Even if your husband and you were to divorce - the court would take into account the amount of support your husband is obligated to pay for his first child before ordering child support for your child.

It is part of the nature of the game that the courts consider that you have to take into account that you already have a child to support when you have other children.

You can get a statement from Social Security that will show what the survivor benefits would be if your husband died. Again - the family maximums would come into play as your child would also be entitled to draw benefits on your husband. So though the law says the child would get approximately 75 % of your husband benefit amount - the child would not get that much if you and your son ALSO draw benefits. If you don't draw mother's benefits - the child could draw the maximum amount - as the amount of 2 children drawing probably wouldn't put them over the family max.

Also check out employer benefits - and any other benefits to which the child would be entitled.

And - yes - you can get life insurance to cover any potential deficiencies in coverage. And your husband can name YOU as the beneficiary. He doesn't HAVE to name the child. That way - if there IS claim for child support against the Estate - YOU will get the money to make up the difference. but if there is NOT a claim against the Estate - YOU get the extra money.

There are also OTHER Estate planning tools you can use to make sure you and your child are provided for.

If you have your money in a joint bank account - that money goes to the joint owner - not the Estate. If both names are on the house - the house would usually go to the joint owner - not through the Estate. Your husband can also name you as the Payable On Death beneficiary on MANY things - and those go to the POD beneficiary and do NOT pass through the Estate.

IF you live in a community property state - be sure to check out the laws about joint ownership - as they can be different.

But EVERYTHING you and your husband worked for are NOT his Estate. Proabably MUCH of it is joint property or POD - and will not even pass THROUGH the Estate.

The Estate claim for child support can only touch the Estate - NOT everything you and your husband own.

Additionally, check out the probate laws in YOUR state. The Will would be probated according to the laws of YOUR state. And though a Texas child support claim would most likely be a valid claim - it would be paid in the order of claims YOUR state specifies.

Most states have an award for surviving spouse and children that are paid BEFORE many other claims.

Under my state's laws the surviving spouse and child(ren) are granted 9 months support (minimum $10,000 spouse and $5,000 per child) BEFORE most other claims are paid. If a child does not live with the surviving spouse - that amount is given to the person who is caring for the child.

I think you need to do a little planning. However, I don't think it will be quite as drastic as you fear.

There ARE other resources that will be considered. Everything you own is NOT part of the Estate. And actually - this can be an opportunity for you and your husband to seriously sit down and PLAN to make sure that EVERYONE's Needs are met in the even of his death. You can sit down and figure out what types of benefits will be paid to whom - and what type of planning you need to do if that amount is not sufficient.

This is a good thing.

Many people die without making adequate plans.

But I don't think the situation will play out where his first child gets everything and leaves you and your child in the cold.

Your husband and you can sit down a make plans for how he will take care of you, your child, and his other child in the event of his death.

And - if you are lucky - he will live a long life and be able to take care of everyone for a LONG time.

I was not quite that lucky. My husband died this February.

Free

I know, I'm just a little frustrated because this law doesn't consider that there is another child. It should be equal for all the children. And I hate it when people throw up the fact that the other child was first. My other two sons were the first but I would feel terrible for taking anything from their little sisters, or anything that their moms worked for.

As for Social Security it would be a good size amount but I don't think it would cover the whole $800 a month.

We will be checking into term life insurance this week. I know my husband has a good chance of not dying today I was just using that as a scenerio (sp).
 

Melody70

Junior Member
I'm sorry about the loss of your husband. I couldn't imagine my life without mine.

We just found out about this new law the other day and it really suprised us. We have talked about having wills made up and what we want done. The kids would have had equal shares. It's not like we were going to leave his son out.
 

curb1

Senior Member
No,
Again this is a "no-brainer". You can get a term life insurance policy for less than $100 a year that would totally cover this worry. You can get the policy tomorrow.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
Hmmmmm.

WHY isn't there a corresponding responsibility upon the estate of the CP in the event THEY die early, leaving the now NCP as the CP? Doesn't the child still need to receive the share of support the second parent was responsible for providing if they die? Doesn't the NCP normally become the CP if the CP dies? How is it fair that THEY have to then raise the child with NO support nor medical nor other help from the estate of the other parent? Both parents should have the same dury to provide support for their child, whether alive or dead. WHY should ONLY the NCPs support responsibility extend beyond death, but not the CPs?

Shouldn't BOTH a child's parents share equivilent duties toward the children they produce?????

What about assets the spouse of the NCP BRINGS to the marriage that they now hold jointly?

BTW: any life insurance the SPOUSE of the NCP buys and pays on the life of the NCP, as the owner, is NOT part of the estate and is not life insurance that the NCP has on themselves. So, if the spouse of the NCP wants sufficient life insurance, if THEY buy it, they will know they have it and it cannot be waylaid to another. Because it is NOT the property of the NCP.
 
Last edited:

Melody70

Junior Member
nextwife,

I didn't even think of that, but it's true. It would be the ncp's sole responsibilty except for social security.

But like I said before this is the law so we have to follow it. The next time my husband has to go back to court for another yearly increase maybe he could ask if she could do the same?

For the no brainer above you, I forgot his/her name, It will probably cost us more then that. My husband has a high risk job. Just last month a man died on this job.
 

CourtClerk

Senior Member
Nexie,

Again, I completely agree with you. I think that it should be LAW that both parents secure life insurance the minute a child is born, but that's just me thinking logically again. I have a healthy life insurance policy (don't tell my ex, he's mad enough at me already) that I purchased when my son was born and yearly as the cost of living goes into the heavens, I up the amount of the policy. Of course, thanks to my ex, the money goes into a trust for my son so long as he's a minor with my BFF as trustee and all kinds of other little things here and there making sure that in the event of something happening to me, it will be virtually impossible for him to collect any money, with the exception of some small (very small) "child support" that will be paid monthly (hell, I'll do better paying support in the event of my death, than he does when he's alive and well).

In my case there will be almost no Social Security money as a result of WEP (winfall elimination provision). I don't expect my son to be able to collect survivor benefits. I don't pay into Social Security.
 
Last edited:
I am sure you were shocked by the law - Though I am not in agreement that the law is unfair - except as others have stated - it only counts for children recieving child support...and it only counts for the noncustodial parent.

What about children of couples who are married when the spouse dies? Wouldn't it be nice if the courts could also say - Hey - the kid comes FIRST before anyone else.

Again, that is why I LIKE the law. I don't think the law is MEANT to do as you were first considering - to take EVERYTHING from YOU and YOUR child for the FIRST child.

Nor would that happen. The insurance your husband has already has is NOT part of his Estate - it would go to you. I am assuming you have it set up where the house and bank accounts, etc. would come to you also - and thus, those wouldn't be part of the Estate.

Again, the Estate is NOT everything - the Estate is the Estate.

So COULD the first child get a portion of your husband's Estate? Probably - IF the resources available to support the child are lacking and IF the ESTATE (actual Estate) has funds avaliable after other claims that come before that claim in order of precedence are paid.

But it isn't quite an either / or propostion. (Either the first child gets it ALL - or you get it ALL) Nor will it be a 50-50 split.

Most states have a widow / surviving spouse award which is paid before most claims (except for burial and adminstration of the Estate costs).

Again, though this law was shocking to you - it has now put you in the position to take an inventory of where you stand right now if something would happen to your husband.

As child support is usually based on income - and Social Security is also - I predict that there won't be MUCH of a gap (if any). Most the children I know who had a parent die get MORE from Social Security than they did from child support.

But you might find some gaps that need to be filled - not just in taking care of his six year old - but also in taking care of you and your two year old. And you can do inventory for what will be avalible to take care of him and your child if something happens to you.

So though the law was shocking - it is an opportunity to find out where you stand and see if needs to be made more solid.

Free

I'm sorry about the loss of your husband. I couldn't imagine my life without mine.

We just found out about this new law the other day and it really suprised us. We have talked about having wills made up and what we want done. The kids would have had equal shares. It's not like we were going to leave his son out.
 

Melody70

Junior Member
Courtclerk,

I keep rereading your last post. All I can think is wow what did he do to you, and what is a BFF?
 

curb1

Senior Member
Melody,
Every year the Social Security Administration sends out "Your Social Security Statement". You should have this on file in your house. My last statement says "if you should die your child will get $1,440 per month." It also says, "your spouse will get $1,440. per month". Total family benefits cannot be more than $3,363 per month."

You need to check your last statement from the Social Security Administration. Also, term life insurance is very cheap. Don't let anyone sell you anything but term insurance, however. Don't get "variable" or "whole" life insurance or you will pay through the nose. Most life insurance agents will not even mention term insurance because the commission for them is so low. You should be able to get $100,000 for about $10-12 per month.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top