Life insurance(55 Posts)
My DH has just informed me that if he was to die he would want his children to get a lump sum, even if this means our ds and I having to sell the family home. He has ds 12 dd6, we have ds 24 wks. He keeps going on about his his ex has to care fit his kids but I try to point out she won't loose get home. I need some perspective. He said if I'm that worried I should put on insurance plane to cover ds and I
Sorry about mistakes, stupid phone
That's awful You should be putting your bloody foot down! So basically one of his children loses their home and he says that so matter of factly? And why? Because he wants his other two children to get a lump sum and that his ex has to care for them??
How about all 3 of his children get some money and they all get to keep their homes? Is that so difficult for him to grasp?
If my DP said that to me and put more value on DSD (and his ex ) over the boys, rather than all of the children being equal then I think it would mark the end of our relationship and I would have his bags packed ready for him. How can any father just decide which children are more important to him.
it would really make sense for him to take out life insurance, naming his ex as the beneficiary and for a sum total that would at least cover what he is currently paying in child maintenance. It could last for as many years as you have left for the youngest child to reach the age of 18 or probably better at 21 or even 25 if university is likely. That way, if he dies, his ex gets a huge lump sum which if she uses sensibly, will last for as long as the children are young.
Perhaps he thinks he's complementing you, albeit in a backhanded way? That you're capable and can manage but she's not going to be able to?
But from what I can gather it means the OP and her child lose their home to facilitate that lump sum, which isn't fair.
Happily ny DH just named me on the life insurance, but as someone said earlier, if he tried to put dsd before dd there would be hell on.
All of the kids are equal and one shouldnt be made homeless for the sake of the others (who already have a home)
You need to put a massive foot down OP
Our ds is only 24 weeks, dsc are 12 & 6. I know he wants to look after them all, he said I should take out an insurance to look after our ds if I'm that worried. Tried to tell him it would be bad enough loosing his dad, then to loose his home as well so the other two don't have to wait for money is bad. (Don't know if they would feel comfortable doing that)
Can you have two policies running together? Maybe he could have one for his dc's and one for ds and I. I hate all this. Money is evil, it's only come about as we may be buying a house. Hope I go first, then there would be no problems
Oh what is this man playing at?! I can't believe he is actually suggesting you sell your DS's home so that his other 2 children get a nice wad of cash! I feel so sad for you and your DS.
Serious question... Does he love your DS that you have together?
I would be fuming emily. Your DS is going to have nothing but hatred towards his father for disregarding him so much and taking away his home, whilst knowing that his siblings are swimming in it. If my DP did this to our DSs I would rub their father's name in the mud and ruin his memory so much after passing away and ensure that they always remember their father as a spineless, heartless, horrible man who loved their sister more than them.
Gosh that sounds very extreme of me doesn't it? I think this is a situation where your emotions would be working on overtime, watching your child lose their home inborder to fund their siblings' nice big lump sum. It's just not something that could ever be justified.
Ds would also get money, it would go three ways. (Think he would prefer a home though)
Absolutely. Where would he go? A nice bit of money is nothing compared to having somewhere to live
Maybe he's just worried that if everything goes to you, you remarry, then die, all of his money could end up completely out of the family with your dsc getting nothing. I think his worries are valid tbh. Best get sufficient life insurance.
I'm a will writer (I have a paid for advert over on MN Classifieds (Small Business).
OP the obvious way around the problem is two fold:
1. Your dh gets decreasing term insurance to cover the child maintenance liability (usually this ends on the child's 18th birthday or completion of full time secondary education, whichever is the later but your dh needs to check the wording on his consent order)
2. Your dh makes a will, leaving his share of your home on a lifetime trust. This means that instead of giving his share to you outright, he "gives" it to 2 trustees (one of which can be you) to hold for the benefit of all three children. You continue to live in the house with your little one, and only when you die or remarry is the house sold, you keep your half if you're still alive, but if you die, your half goes to whomever you like (presumably your biological children), his half is divided at that point between the children.
A life interest trust gives you the security of staying in the home, but all 3 children (or more, if you have them), are guaranteed to get something when your dh passes on. Given the fact that you have a new baby, I'm assuming that your dh is still quite young, so not likely to pop off any time soon!
The insurance to cover child maintenance is something which lots of people do and would sort out the short term problem in the very unlikely event that your dh did die while still liable to pay mtce.
btw for anyone interested, my paid-for advert on Classifieds is titled "5* Will Writing Service Recommended by Mumsnetters".
he's being an arse
He should take out life insurance, with all 3 children named as beneficiaries.
Regarding the house - are you joint tenants or tenants in common? This makes a huge difference. If joint tenants, you automatically get his share anyway
Put your foot down.
Because of my DH's 'grabby' ex I made sure our wills state the house and any money go the the surviving spouse and on the death of the surviving spouse everything is split equally between the children.
We have also told the children irrespective of which one of us dies first there's nothing for either of them till the other one of us dies.
Gemma the thing I wouldn't like about that arrangement is if you die and your DH remarries. Everything in his name would then be jointly due to his new wife. Your children could end up either getting a lot less than you intended, or indeed nothing.
We also had to be careful due to a 'grabby' ex. I don't have children, but DH has a son. When we made our wills, we took out a life insurance policy to cover any maintenance liability. As regards everything else, if one of us dies, everything goes to the other party, and when the last one of us dies, it will all go to DSS. DH would never intentionally leave me in a messy situation, but I wanted to get it all sorted out properly, otherwise I feared that if anything happened to DH, his share of the house could end up going to DSS.
But going back to the original point of this thread - if DH announced that I'd be homeless in the event of his death, to provide DSS with a lump sum ..... well, words fail me. In a bio family, if Dad dies then everything is passed to Mum (usually) and then when Mum dies, it then goes to the children. Why should it be different in a blended family?
He's just informed me that if he dies I can get a house on the social as this is what his ex had to do when they split (they were never married)
Thanks mumblechum1, I will look into that. I'm so angry right now so need to sort my head out.
I've never heard of such a blatant, and horrible, case of putting the second family very definitely second. I'm not suggesting the 'first' children should be disadvantaged, but what's wrong with some parity, plus some consideration for his wife ????????
And you married and had a child with this man because ?????
"He's just informed me that if he dies I can get a house on the social"
Who owns the house??
Emily, do you own the house as tenants in common or joint tenants, do you know? Because that would make a big difference.
This reminds me very much of my first husband - ok, so there were no exes or children in the picture, but in the event of his death he planned to leave his half of our house to his mother ........ He's not dead (as far as I'm aware), but I'm happily re-married !!!!!
We are looking to buy the house we currently rent. It would be In mouth our names as we need both incomes to buy it
Emily, I wouldn't buy a house with him until this is sorted out.
Pearly, I married him because I love him and no one even thinks about these things when you get into a relationship, I didn't even really think about the effect of him already having two kids would have. It seems his guilt about his past is starting to destroy our future. If we have nothing none of this even matters
Emily check out Mumblechum's posts, she talks sense
(I work in life assurance and pensions and get lots of queries re second relationships and providing fo rchildren).
Do NOT buy with this man till you have this sorted out - you don't want to be putting money into an asset that you will have to sell if he dies...
It would be very easy to sort out properly (if he has any sense!) - a decreasing term assurance matches his future maintenance liabilities very well, and is the cheapest form of life assurance on the market.
Hell, he could even get his ex-w to pay for it - as she is reliant on maintenance from him, she has an insurable interest in him for that amount. She could pay for the cover on him, but own the policy herself - then in the event of his death, she makes the death claim and the policy proceeds go directly to her. (would have to be phrased a bit better than that if discussing with her!)
No involvement with his estate - so she gets the money much more quickly - and hopefully you get to keep the house for your own family.
Also look into you and he putting your own insurance in place - of course there will be cover in place for your mortgage as a condition of the loan, but in the event of one of you dying, the other will have to continue to run the home and family on one income instead of two. Everyone thinks "Oh great the mortgage will no longer be payable" but it would make life much easier in that situation if you also had a lump sum so you could choose to work part time or not at all, or help pay for childcare or a cleaner/nanny etc.
(all this is a bit of a bugbear of mine, people don't think these things will happen and put preparing for them on the long finger, then if something does happen, it's too late to sort it all out and then they have significant financial difficulties on top of a bereavement or serious illness)
I can definitely see how and/or why you didn't think of these practicalities at the time.
BUT, doesn't the values he's displaying now change your view of him somewhat? How can you share a life with him now knowing he'd have you turfed out of your home?
Agree with Petal don't buy a house with him, at least until the practicalities are sorted out and make sense for you and your child. Or perhaps buy your own smaller home to give yourself some security.
It seems his guilt about the past is starting to destroy our future
That is sooooo true of many men in 'second' marriages/families. But very sad though.
Cross posted with you Emily - the guilt about his past can be handled v easily with a policy for £30 or £40 a month instead of throwing you and your DC out of our home!
Can the solicitor you are using to buy your house have a chat to him about family provision?
Onthebottom "She could pay for the cover on him, but own the policy herself - then in the event of his death, she makes the death claim and the policy proceeds go directly to her"
But wouldn't this mean that she could in effect claim on the childrens' behalf that HE hasn't left them anything to replace maintenance, and that therefore they have to be maintained via his estate.
But wouldn't this mean that she could in effect claim on the childrens' behalf that HE hasn't left them anything to replace maintenance, and that therefore they have to be maintained via his estate.
I think WomensWeekly means that the insurance would cover whatever maintenance the children would otherwise have received under the terms of their consent order.
Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, the children could claim if they were not provided for. The insurance policy would have to be worded in such a way that it was clearly intended to be a substitute for the child mtce, and therefore they are provided for in terms of income while they are minor, but otherwise, in my view (25 years as a divorce lawyer and will writer), she would have no claim against the estate, assuming that she doesn't receive spousal maintenance. The consent order should have dismissed all of the wife's claims under the 1975 Act.
So long as your husband makes reasonable provision for the children under a lifetime trust, as I suggested earlier, then the children have no basis for a claim that they should receive anything earlier than the OP's death (if she survives her husband).
Emily check out Mumblechum's posts, she talks sense Thanks
Op sorry for sounding harsh but I disagree it does matter because it comes across as your dh having very little regard for you and your child you have together. It's great that he is a responsible father to his other two dc but that shouldn't come at the expense of your dc together.
Yes this is what I meant "Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, the children could claim if they were not provided for. The insurance policy would have to be worded in such a way that it was clearly intended to be a substitute for the child mtce"
I personally would avoid this risk - if she arranged the policy and paid for it then the father would have no control over the wording. Depending on how grabbing/vindictive she is she could easily put the policy in place and then claim he made no provision for replacement of maintenance (sorry but have had the worst example of a grabbing ex here!).
I'd go for the father arranging and paying the life insurance himself personally
She's not grabbing at all, she asks for nothing. I didn't even think about maintenance payments. She doesn't get money for her, just the kids.
Thank, I did read mumblechum post x
I agree, your dh should be paying the insurance premiums in order to have control over that aspect, otherwise his ex could cancel the policy and the estate would potentially be vulnerable to a claim under the 1975 Act.
Having his half in a trust is a good idea but I think he would like it split three ways otherwise his two will get a quarter each and our ds will get a half. Plus he doesn't want them to have to wait for me to die to get there money. So cheery all this!
Plus he doesn't want them to have to wait for me to die to get there money.
Well, one option would be to give you a right to reside for a shorter period, say until your youngest child is 24 (finishing Uni age), maybe?
Yes I suggested that, I'm going to look into insurance for myself so my ds has something.
emily in process of similar with my dp so offering on the advice he was given...yes your sh has to make provisions for his kids with ex in event of his death but it should not cone at the expense of you and your ds. Legally all he has to do it take out a life insurance policy with his kids as beneficiaries and his ex as trustee if he dies before they are 18. Basically it needs to cover whatever
Any house he buys after cessation of a previous marriage cannot be claimed upon by his ex, it will be part of his divorce if he reads the fine print.
Emily my DP and I have 2 DSCs and one (probably)DD due in August and have life insurance which covers the following in the case of his death:
lump sum for value of child maintenance til youngest DSC leaves fulltime education
sum to cover home and costs of bringing up new baby until same point
sum to allow each child to inherit roughly same amount
now all these amounts are not the same as we rent and DPs ex wife received a lump sum on settlement to allow her to buy a home mortgage free (she currently lives with her parents) but they do ensure rough equity of outcome if the worst happens.
In the event of either of us dying we are the recipients of the others estate - not any of the kids.
Sorry tried to.hit preview and got post blooming smart phone
Insurance needs to.cover the value of his maintenance obligations up to all kids with his ex are 18
Oh and his exW has insurance to cover spousal maintenance in event of his death.
Hope we have all this covered, it seemed bloody complicated and we took legal advice!
Bloody hell Emily .... despite the sensible advice about wills and insurance I don't think the main issue here is ignorance of practicalities but about his appalling attitude towards you and DS.
It would have been entirely different had he said "I don't know what to do for the best in the event of my death - I/we need to find out all the possibilities so that all my kids are adequately protected". Instead, he's said he wants you out and seems not to care. Social housing indeed - does he ever read the news these days - no-one can rely on being given social housing and why the heck should you depend on that as your "insurance policy" anyway ?
Without meaning to be (too) rude I'm going to suppose for a moment that he's rather thick and hasn't heard about life insurance - though I find that hard to imagine really. So .... he thinks the only way for his older kids to get their inheritance is to have you sell the house. Any normal person would have been distressed at this scenario, as in, "oh dear, I don't know how this is going to work, if my older kids get their inheritance that means you and DS lose your home, I can't see any way round that" ..... at which point, you step in, and say "don't worry, there must be a way round it, let's get some legal advice" or even (!!) "actually, there's this marvellous thing called life insurance ..... "
BUT ..... he's not expressed any concern for you and DS .... in fact it comes across from your posts that he couldn't care less hence the flippant social housing remark.
And have just looked back and seen that he suggested YOU should get insurance if you're "that worried" so not only has he heard of the insurance concept, HE isn't bothered about his youngest child and has dismissed your worries by placing all the responsibility for minimising future risk onto you. Good god.
This sort of thing is something couples do TOGETHER when they have children. It's not about one parent opting out of their responsibility to their child (or one of them). Indeed, if he thinks it's the responsibility of the mother to think about the future should he die, then why isn't he asking his ex to make similar arrangements if she's "that worried" ? Why is he going to the effort of making arrangements (which are crap, divisive, unfair, and extremely hurtful) to make sure his older kids are okay but in effect saying his youngest can take his chances ? He has every bit as much duty of care towards the youngest - and should be seeking solutions which are fair for everyone. It beggars belief that he's happy with a scenario where you lose your home so that the kids who already have a home can get a cash lump sum too. Even in the extremely unlikely event of you getting a council home, does he not imagine how stressful the whole process would be for you and DS - selling a home you feel safe and secure in, scraping about for a council property (which you'd have very little control over) or private rented where prospective tenants on housing benefit are barred from so many properties anyway, so you end up in a dump as that's all you can get. Does he really think a scenario like that is what a grieving widow should have to cope with when it could so easily be avoided ?
Yes ... all of this could be sorted out practically with insurance and trusts. But what about his nasty callous attitude ? Why the concern for some of his kids but not all ? I don't think I could forget this in a hurry.
And so bloody what if his precious older kids have to wait until you die to get "their money" ?? That's pretty standard procedure.
My dad died over 20 years ago and so I shall have to wait until my mum dies to get "my money". If there's any left, if she doesn't need it for care etc. It would never have occurred to my dad in a million years - and he would have been horrified at the suggestion - that my mum sold the house on his death so us kids could get some cash. That should be just as true if there's a stepparent involved. I don't even like the idea of OP remaining in house for a limited period .... why shouldn't she have the security of her own home for life which is what most people aspire to ? I know there's the argument that if she remarries etc her stepkids may never get their inheritance but people don't get inheritances they expect for all sorts of reasons in the end - care fees, charitable bequests, fallings out with family and so on, and that applies in non-step families too.
The more I think about this it's almost as if OP's DH is saying that he doesn't trust her to do right by his older kids - which is pretty insulting really. Like the only way he can be sure they get something is by making her and his youngest child homeless. It practically feels like he's punishing her by creating stress and worry where none need exist.
So if you die will he also have to sell the house and split the money between the three kids?
I would rather poke my own eyes out with a blunt spoon than buy a house with the kind of man that your DH sounds like.
Totally agree with that, he doesn't trust you to do the right thing.
So prove him wrong. Do the right thing by taking your half and walking away now.
But then Im a bit trigger happy...
He has a life insurance policy but it won't cover any mortgage we may be getting and he now realises other safe guards will have to be put in place. We have spoken a bit more (we are both new to all this so didn't really know our options) and I told him about the trust fund option mentioned earlier and he likes the sound of that. He doesn't want anyone to loose out (including ds.) His ex gf isn't the problem, he just wants the kids looked after. To be honest, he is under a lot of stress at the moment and I think it's all getting to him.
Hmm you're being very lenient on him Emily. Listen to catsmother.
Is this a life insurance policy that he paid into before he met you or when we was with his Ex ?
Such a simple situation so messed up. I bet this life cover isn't in trust anyway so it's all pointless discussing this mythical situation.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.