Moral Question

The beneficiary of her life insurance policy needs to be the kids. That is the top priority. They need the money, and this takes the family fighting over money out of it, or at least it should. Then someone is gonna have to set up a trust to hold and disburse the money to the kids. Then whomever gets the kids, gets the money to use for them.

I'm also thinking that children with disabilities are probably eligible for social security.. or other benefits. Would I be wrong on this? So that for the family friend who is willing and able to take the children there would be some income to offset the sudden new expenses associated with her new, larger, family.

That said, I have a very hard time believing some sort of court, court guardian, social worker.. someone.. isn't going to get involved in this. I don't think you can just hand off children in a will. Again, I could be wrong.. but it doesn't sound intuitively right to me that she can just bequest them to a family friend and expect that to go through without a hitch. In my state there's requirements as to square footage in bedrooms, among a gracious plenty of other twiddly details. My bet is the friend's house wouldn't even come close to being the required size.

A very sad situation all around.

__________________
Icelandic Sheep and German Angora Rabbits

Oh, sorry, another thought...

Why is this a moral question and not simply a practical one, or a decision based on what is best for everyone involved? Just because a promise was made between sisters many years ago doesn't make the decision, to send the children to the sister, the right decision for the children (or the sister and her family). Adding "morality" here just fogs the issue, since there are conflicting "moral obligations." One to the children, and one to the husband and her family. Neither is "better" or "more deserving" than the other.

This is a practical, unhappy, challenge, and I think phrasing it as a moral issue clouds everyone's judgement because who wants to be seen as immoral? Taking the "moral issue" out of the equation and you might find everyone is able to cooperate to find a solution in the best interest of the children. For example, the sister and her husband could help the family friend add on to her house. Or help with child care so everyone stays engaged in the children's lives without feeling guilty about not being able to take all of them in.

__________________
Icelandic Sheep and German Angora Rabbits

Trust fund for the kids, insurance goes into the trust fund.

SS will make payments for minor children who had a parent die, especially if the children are disabled. That's additional support money.

I would not send the kids to the sister. That marriage sounds shaky to me and I wouldn't want the children to go where an adult doesn't want them. That is a recipe for abuse and would probably break that marriage up.

The mother should be discussing it with everybody in her life. Maybe there is someone who she didn't think would take the kids who would.

Is there a grandmother? Maybe with the trust fund and the SS, a grandparent could afford to take them. Are there godparents?

Also, the husband is willing to take 2 of them. Maybe 2 could go to the sister and the rest to the friend. With a court appointed trustee to dole out the trust fund money.

Friend should get the children and the money in order to offset the financial burden of their care.

I've got two disabled children. There's no way anybody without a whole lot of experience could care for them. I cannot imagine how an overwhelmed husband could care for all of those children. He already seeing a therapist. He's being brave by admitting he cannot care for these additional children. How can anyone blame him? Theory is one thing; practice is another.

__________________
Moms don't look at things like normal people.
-----DD

That was not meant to say that he should agree to adopt the children. I quoted the post I was replying to.

If they don't qualify due to disability, survivor's benefits will be calculated on the parent's work history. That could be a lot or a little.

Ummmmmm . . . . . . . . . . WHY would the family get the life insurance?!? All of K's assets should be going into a trust fund for the kids. There should be an overseer of the money until the kids reach adulthood. Whoever takes the kids, would show where the money is going and be reimbursed.

Also, once K passes away, the kids will each get Social Security checks until they are at least 18 years old.

As for K's sister making the promise to take care of the kids - things have changed since the agreement. Her sister was single at the time, she's had her own kids, etc. (I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying her circumstances have CHANGED!)

K needs to find someone - whether it be family or friends who will take all of her kids. And she needs someone else who will dole out the money as needed while they are being raised, until they are adults and can take over the trust for themselves.

__________________
Michael W. Smith in North-West Pennsylvania

"Everything happens for a reason."

The will needs to be worked on NOW. The money for the children makes sence. The sister if guilty of nothing but living her life and most likly feels like ............ the husband is honest and trying the friend is honest and most likly the best for the younger ones. If the sister, bil and friend are willing it can be worked that the kids are still a family.

__________________
I'll keep my guns, ammo, and second admendment--You can keep the CHANGE.

Whether he knew or not, as another poster said, reality isn't quite the same as theory. Plus, circumstances change in life. Bottom line is that the kids should not be stuck with a family where one of the parents doesn't want them, no matter how it came about. There is nothing worse for the kids than parents who do not want them. Should sis have never married or had kids because her sister had adopted these and she agreed to take them? Can't go back and change now what has already happened. Better plan is to find someone who WANTS the kids and can handle them.

__________________
http://maysmissive.blogspot.com/

K needs a will TODAY and needs to make sure the beneficary of teh life insurance policy is the kids or a trust fund for the kids.
TODAY!!

It is possible that the state will pay the sister and/or friend for fostering the kids. Contact with the state needs to be done.

I think everyone is making assumptions about the BIL. He has two preschoolers and is being asked to suddenly take five more kids. Most people would be anxious about this. Three of the children are special needs. Yea, I'd be anxious too. I don't see a problem with giving the two older children to the sister and the other three to the friend. Yes, they are being split up, but they are more likely to end up in a permanent stable home this way. They are more likely to get the attention they need, if only because the numbers are reduced.

The children need to be spending time in the prospective homes to help them transition. Once they are spending time and over nights at the sisters, the BIL will probably feel less anxious and more confident in having them. After that, he may even agree to take a third child. Give the guy a chance.

Actually, being the surviving orphans of a SS payer they should all be eligible for benefits, probably more for the kids with disabilities.

__________________
Flaming Xtian
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mahatma Gandhi


Libertarindependent

As I already posted, I wasn't criticizing him, just pointing out to the person I quoted that we don't know whether or not the sister married a man without telling him she might need to take in five motherless children some day.

*the BIL knew that his wife agreed to take her sisters kids if something happened. At the time, K was healthy and no one had a reason to believe she'd be dying in 4 years. They will be married 4 years this July. I was wrong about the adoptions. They were started approximately 3 years before the marriage. I can see where he'd agree with it before marriage as he had no idea what parenting is like. Now that he's a parent, he realizes how tough it is.

*The Special needs kids have Downs Syndrome. There's not much medical care to them. The other special needs kid has a brain shunt. He can't be hit in the tummy and needs to have his behaviors monitered as they usually indicate when the shunt is plugged.

*Since the kids were foster kids, they get a stipend and medicade. If they go n SS they lose the medicade. Since two of the kids have Downs and one of the kids is on ADD meds that cost $150 a month, losing insurance would be costly. The stipend is comparable or a little less than SS. They just get medicade if they stay off of SS.

*K has a will. It names S as the beneficary with their Dad being the secondary beneficary. Unfortunately Dad thinks S's birth children are "real grandkids" and should get all of his money (valued at a million dollars or more). K has a fear that her sister would agree to take the kids and after a bit decide to parcel them out to whoever will take them and keep the money. Since she oversees the trust there's no rule that says she can't build on to her house the first few months she has the kids and then once she has a beautiful home, kick the kids out. The money wouldn't follow them.


Clear as mud?

__________________
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one.

I also believe that workers need Unions as much as gun owners need the NRA.

As a grandmother that did the family responsibility thing and adopted 4 grandchildren My opinion is probably clouded. I think if the BIL WANTS the 2 children and feels he can do right by them and the friend WANTS the other kids and feels she can do right by them while she is alive she should get it legal. Social services do not like to split kids up. But 5 kids and special needs makes it hard for anyone to be able to take all and do a good job. Especially when there are biological kids too.
I think it better to split them then for all to go to a home were their needs cannot be met. I do not blame the BIL. Better to be honest then to pretend
It sounds like K already is fearing her decision. If I were dying my first priority would to make sure my children were being cared for,. How awful to have your last days buried in fear and uncertainty. She needs to be pro active so that she can go to her death with some peace knowingher children are going into situations that they are weanted and loved and that the people have the means to care for them.
Sure its hard to split siblings. It would also be awful hard I think to find 1 home for 5 extra children.

K needs to make her kids the beneficiery of her insurance that way it can be placed in a trust type account (detailed in a will) for trustees to use. Trustees do not have to be the family who have custody. She needs a lwayer right now.

__________________
Do not Lead for I will Not Follow
Do not Follow for I shall Not Lead
I am but a Simple Drummer

No. The insurance money goes into a trust fund with court over-sight. Then the sister (if she is the trustee) can not spend the money any way she wants. If the sister spends the money on herself and then throws the kids out, she'll end up in jail for embezzlement.

The mother of these kids needs to see a good lawyer and get it set up legally.

I suspect this very situation is why the adoption services are reluctant to send children to single parent homes.

I think that it also highlights something very important that parents of minor children need to do at least on a yearly basis. We review our important paperwork and documents, and part of that review is that I check in with my named guardians to make sure that they are still willing and able to take on the responsibility of our child. That way if they did change their minds we would be able to make other arrangements before an emergency happened.