Jump to content

Menu

Not wanting to risk it


Scarlett
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Devil advocate here:

Why is it silly to not want other people to have his info? 

I mean. Ideally, I wouldn’t want anything to do with a man who behaved that way about my own children. I sure as hell wouldn’t marry him.  BUT I have to admit I think most of the mixed families I know are more like that than not.  I find it baffling and disheartening but I know many women who say things like, “well he isn’t their dad so it’s not his problem”.

But we don’t live in an ideal world. This isn’t his kid and it appears he doesn’t want a parental role and has no legal obligation to provide one - so given that reality - why should he give you any information he deems private?

He had both boys in his home until 3 years ago when the youngest came to live with us.  He has had them on his insurance since they married 8 years ago. Child support is calculated upon that as a matter of fact.  So I find it insane that he would not give us an Insursnce card.  In fact it was put in the last modification that she had to supply us with one.  She finally sent a picture of it. (And begged us to. To tell her husband she did)  But even still almost every provider will ask for the insureds DOB.  A few ask for more questions than that.  So I guess if you don’t want to provide basic information about yourself you shouldn’t have put the kids on your insurance to start with.  This is particularly irritating to me because dss needed a specialist for YEARS and we had no way to get him to one because we didn’t have access to the insurance info.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

He had both boys in his home until 3 years ago when the youngest came to live with us.  He has had them on his insurance since they married 8 years ago. Child support is calculated upon that as a matter of fact.  So I find it insane that he would not give us an Insursnce card.  In fact it was put in the last modification that she had to supply us with one.  She finally sent a picture of it. (And begged us to. To tell her husband she did)  But even still almost every provider will ask for the insureds DOB.  A few ask for more questions than that.  So I guess if you don’t want to provide basic information about yourself you shouldn’t have put the kids on your insurance to start with.  This is particularly irritating to me because dss needed a specialist for YEARS and we had no way to get him to one because we didn’t have access to the insurance info.  

WOW!

I find it interesting that step kids could even be on his insurance. DH is not eligible to put step children on his. He has to be their father by birth or adoption or legal guardian. Around here marrying someone with kids does not make one the legal guardian of those kids. Really, you don't have any rights when it comes to step children. Different companies, different policies, and of course different states.

If they were on his insurance, as health care access is a matter of well being and often life or death, he should have been compelled to provide the card. Good grief. What a twerp!

That said, on some levels I do understand. He didn't know you; he was probably suspicious of what his wife said about her ex husband. Identity theft is such a big deal these days, and with the kind of info on a health card one could open credit cards in another person's name. My brother's ex did it with info off the child support order when it was upped due to household income increasing, and opened a visa with my brother's new wife's data. She didn't even get in trouble really. Just a slap on the wrist.

It really hurt the boys when it came to college. My brother refused to fill out FASFA because he figured she would some how get his tax return info, and step mom had just gone back to work again. It cost my nephews access to financial aid and most scholarships.

What a world we live in!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

WOW!

I find it interesting that step kids could even be on his insurance. DH is not eligible to put step children on his. He has to be their father by birth or adoption or legal guardian. Around here marrying someone with kids does not make one the legal guardian of those kids. Really, you don't have any rights when it comes to step children. Different companies, different policies, and of course different states.

If they were on his insurance, as health care access is a matter of well being and often life or death, he should have been compelled to provide the card. Good grief. What a twerp!

That said, on some levels I do understand. He didn't know you; he was probably suspicious of what his wife said about her ex husband. Identity theft is such a big deal these days, and with the kind of info on a health card one could open credit cards in another person's name. My brother's ex did it with info off the child support order when it was upped due to household income increasing, and opened a visa with my brother's new wife's data. She didn't even get in trouble really. Just a slap on the wrist.

It really hurt the boys when it came to college. My brother refused to fill out FASFA because he figured she would some how get his tax return info, and step mom had just gone back to work again. It cost my nephews access to financial aid and most scholarships.

What a world we live in!!

I know right. But he is just paranoid in general...and of course as you say he only knows what his wife says about her xh so whatever.  But people who think their info is private are just delusional in general.  Once I took dss to a doctor...before we had the picture of the insurance card....and dss’s Mom had called in the info. As we were filling out paperwork the employee at doctors office came around and sat by me and had the application with all the info on it...and she says....now honey who is this?  I explained it was dss’s step dad....and right there on the form, big as life was the step dads social security number. I giggled inwardly as I committed the number to memory.....and wished so bad I could tell that jack ass I know his social security number.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2019 at 5:10 PM, Scarlett said:

My ss's step date is so super secretive about his info that he won't even let us have an insurance card for dss.  Over the years I have gathered any and all information about him that I have happened to hear or see and now I can easily get medical care for ds because I know enough details.  The step dad would die if he knew what I know.  It is so silly.

Why doesn't his own dad have the insurance for his son? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2019 at 7:12 PM, maize said:

It's a problem if the child is on his insurance and he won't give that insurance information to the primary custodial parent.

He doesn't care whether or not the child has access to medical care when needed? That is entirely unreasonable.

This is one reason why I can't believe Scarlett's DH doesn't carry the insurance for his son himself. 

Edited by hippiemamato3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scarlett said:

Do you think anyone can get insurance just because they want to?

Does your family have insurance? Do you and your son? If not, then I guess it makes sense his son didn't have it through your family. But if you DO, then you not covering him is just as bad as his stepdad being uncooperative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Does your family have insurance? Do you and your son? If not, then I guess it makes sense his son didn't have it through your family. But if you DO, then you not covering him is just as bad as his stepdad being uncooperative. 

Our family—obviously is blended.  I lost my insurance when I divorced my xh.    My son continued to be covered by his dad. Shortly after dh got served divorce papers he had a bad accident and a few months later was laid off.  He kept COBRA for his sons as long as he could. But about the time we married COBRA ran out and the rates were not within reach.  At this point she was not re married.  He begged her to put them on state health care for which she very much qualified.  She refused. We tried, but were unable to since she had custody.  

Then she married and put the kids on her new husbands insurance ( he had two kids so added two more cost them. O more money),  we were very glad for that but it was rarely used...as I have described in other places I had to claw and scratch to get dss to the specialists he need to go to.  

Does that answer your questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Our family—obviously is blended.  I lost my insurance when I divorced my xh.    My son continued to be covered by his dad. Shortly after dh got served divorce papers he had a bad accident and a few months later was laid off.  He kept COBRA for his sons as long as he could. But about the time we married COBRA ran out and the rates were not within reach.  At this point she was not re married.  He begged her to put them on state health care for which she very much qualified.  She refused. We tried, but were unable to since she had custody.  

Then she married and put the kids on her new husbands insurance ( he had two kids so added two more cost them. O more money),  we were very glad for that but it was rarely used...as I have described in other places I had to claw and scratch to get dss to the specialists he need to go to.  

Does that answer your questions?

It makes me further horrified that we don't have insurance for everyone in this country. This should never be an issue. Ugh. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2019 at 6:17 PM, EmseB said:

I don't know, maybe I have just personally witnessed too many situations where the above situations were not avoided because the couple didn't get married. For example divorce requiring a lawyer...okay, there's a difference there, but I've seen a share of  breakups of non-marriage relationships where lawyers end up being involved. So, again, I think it's kind of wishful thinking to "avoid" something like that by not marrying a person, or that you are being risk averse by "only" being in a long term relationship with them (over the course of years).

The last thing you mention is just someone being dishonest with their partner, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I was assuming that the person involved was telling the truth that they didn't want to "risk" getting married with their long term partner.

I get that there are situations where if you remarry you lose some sort of funds (alimony, pension, whatever...), which is why I said 99%. I might be willing to revise that figure down to 95%, maybe. 😄 And, again, I have no problem with people who don't want to get married, I just think it's sort of delusional to say that staying in a LTR without marriage is avoiding the risks that would otherwise be involved with a marriage. I say this as someone who had a close family member break up a LTR before the holidays and tried to pretend that because they weren't married it was just like any other breakup. It just doesn't work that way after 5 or 6 or 10 years.

Also, I've heard guys say stuff like this but it's because they don't want their stuff on the line in a divorce, meanwhile their girlfriend has quit a job to move to be near them, given up their own place to move in with him, etc., and so sure HE doesn't want to risk marriage and she says, "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love," and then guess who is left unprotected and out on their butt when the breakup happens?

 

Yes, this is why many places have common law marriage.  The laws around marriage are intended to protect the more vulnerable member from injustice.  And the same problem arises if they are living together without marriage.  Two people living together in the same home, making decisions about employment, etc, you really cannot help but be significantly affected.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this may vary greatly depending on what state you live in. I'm in a community property state and yes, getting married GREATLY complicates matters. Divorcing is MUCH messier financially and legally than just breaking up. Even if you keep separate finances, bank accounts, etc. it doesn't matter, everything is community property - including ANY debt created during the marriage. Hell, the state sent me a letter after my ex husband died saying I could be responsible for his student loans if I don't prove he is dead, because even though we were divorced more than a decade ago, that debt was incurred while we were married so I'm responsible for it!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, my ex and I totally agreed on everything from finances to custody arrangements, but because we were legally married and not just in a relationship were were required to go through court ordered mediation (at our own expense), required to pay all sorts of legal fees to file the paperwork, more fees to have the papers served to my spouse by the sheriff's office, etc etc. It took FOREVER due to the slow and expensive court process, when we'd already agreed on everything and drawn up our own agreement on how finances would be split and what our custody situation would be. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

I think this may vary greatly depending on what state you live in. I'm in a community property state and yes, getting married GREATLY complicates matters. Divorcing is MUCH messier financially and legally than just breaking up. Even if you keep separate finances, bank accounts, etc. it doesn't matter, everything is community property - including ANY debt created during the marriage. Hell, the state sent me a letter after my ex husband died saying I could be responsible for his student loans if I don't prove he is dead, because even though we were divorced more than a decade ago, that debt was incurred while we were married so I'm responsible for it!

Except...the reason that stuff becomes community property is so that someone like me (SAHM with no income) doesn't get screwed out of everything not in her name or that she can't prove she earned. "Messier" is a relative term. If my husband and I weren't married, in our current financial situation, I'd absolutely be in a mess if we broke up. And I can think of no relationship where everything can be split perfectly evenly down the middle and/or kept completely separate. How is it not also messy if you aren't married? In the absence of marriage how does all of that stuff get divided up?

This concept is one of the big reasons (if not the big reason) we have state-sanctioned marriage in the first place. Breakups of long-term, family unit-ish relationships usually require a disinterested, objective 3rd party and legal proceedings to sort them out. The fact that someone may or could get stuck with debt unjustly after the fact, I think, is an argument about state law, etc., but I can't imagine avoiding getting married because something like that may happen 10 years into the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Except...the reason that stuff becomes community property is so that someone like me (SAHM with no income) doesn't get screwed out of everything not in her name or that she can't prove she earned. "Messier" is a relative term. If my husband and I weren't married, in our current financial situation, I'd absolutely be in a mess if we broke up. And I can think of no relationship where everything can be split perfectly evenly down the middle and/or kept completely separate. How is it not also messy if you aren't married? In the absence of marriage how does all of that stuff get divided up?

This concept is one of the big reasons (if not the big reason) we have state-sanctioned marriage in the first place. Breakups of long-term, family unit-ish relationships usually require a disinterested, objective 3rd party and legal proceedings to sort them out. The fact that someone may or could get stuck with debt unjustly after the fact, I think, is an argument about state law, etc., but I can't imagine avoiding getting married because something like that may happen 10 years into the future.

And yet the quickest way to poverty is for a woman to get a divorce. Not a break up, but a divorce.  Frankly the state screws as many women as it protects.  It's better than it was 100 years ago in some ways, but it's still bad enough that any woman with concerns about financial autonomy safety is smart to give marriage a weary eye.

It very much varies by state how community property is handled. Often community property is more about community debt collections than community division of actual assets.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Except...the reason that stuff becomes community property is so that someone like me (SAHM with no income) doesn't get screwed out of everything not in her name or that she can't prove she earned. "Messier" is a relative term. If my husband and I weren't married, in our current financial situation, I'd absolutely be in a mess if we broke up. And I can think of no relationship where everything can be split perfectly evenly down the middle and/or kept completely separate. How is it not also messy if you aren't married? In the absence of marriage how does all of that stuff get divided up?

This concept is one of the big reasons (if not the big reason) we have state-sanctioned marriage in the first place. Breakups of long-term, family unit-ish relationships usually require a disinterested, objective 3rd party and legal proceedings to sort them out. The fact that someone may or could get stuck with debt unjustly after the fact, I think, is an argument about state law, etc., but I can't imagine avoiding getting married because something like that may happen 10 years into the future.

 

But if you weren’t married, why would things need to be divided at all? In a dating relationship, you have your house and your stuff and the other person has their own house and their stuff, and finances are kept separate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

Except...the reason that stuff becomes community property is so that someone like me (SAHM with no income) doesn't get screwed out of everything not in her name or that she can't prove she earned. "Messier" is a relative term. If my husband and I weren't married, in our current financial situation, I'd absolutely be in a mess if we broke up. And I can think of no relationship where everything can be split perfectly evenly down the middle and/or kept completely separate. How is it not also messy if you aren't married? In the absence of marriage how does all of that stuff get divided up?

This concept is one of the big reasons (if not the big reason) we have state-sanctioned marriage in the first place. Breakups of long-term, family unit-ish relationships usually require a disinterested, objective 3rd party and legal proceedings to sort them out. The fact that someone may or could get stuck with debt unjustly after the fact, I think, is an argument about state law, etc., but I can't imagine avoiding getting married because something like that may happen 10 years into the future.

Sure, and I'm glad I'm married to my now DH. But we were talking about why a man might not want to get married, not why a woman WOULD want to be married. Besides, in my situation with my ex-DH he brought only debt to my life, not assets. He was chronically out of work for various reasons, and didn't even go to class when racking up that student loan debt. I was the breadwinner, not him. So no, it wasn't financially better for me to be married than dating in that scenario. As for how is it less messy if not married - if you keep your finances separate, as even some married couples do, then there is nothing to separate. It's like roommates finding a new place to live, not a divorce. They already have all their assets and debts separate. 

20 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

And yet the quickest way to poverty is for a woman to get a divorce. Not a break up, but a divorce.  Frankly the state screws as many women as it protects.  It's better than it was 100 years ago in some ways, but it's still bad enough that any woman with concerns about financial autonomy safety is smart to give marriage a weary eye.

It very much varies by state how community property is handled. Often community property is more about community debt collections than community division of actual assets.

Yup, that's what it was for me. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

But if you weren’t married, why would things need to be divided at all? In a dating relationship, you have your house and your stuff and the other person has their own house and their stuff, and finances are kept separate. 

I think she's presuming they are shacking up?

Which home ownership would be an issue, but many places these day allow the rental agreement to be in both names.

Honestly, I wonder why prenup agreements have not become far more common than they are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time I've seen lawyers involved in a break up without divorce is when kids are involved, it was in fact a common law marriage, and or they bought stuff with both their names on it.

*Purposely* having kids with someone you wouldn't want to be tied to legally is just... well not smart to me.  Kids legally bind you in one way or another to another person for no less than 18 years. And not even divorce changes that most of the time. So the thought process in that decision is just ... confusing to me to say the least.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

 

But if you weren’t married, why would things need to be divided at all? In a dating relationship, you have your house and your stuff and the other person has their own house and their stuff, and finances are kept separate. 

I thought we were talking about long term cohabiting relationships. Relationships where the only step *not* taken was getting married. I apologize if I misinterpreted what the OP was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I thought we were talking about long term cohabiting relationships. Relationships where the only step *not* taken was getting married. I apologize if I misinterpreted what the OP was about.

 

Thanks — I was thinking that Scarlett was talking about a guy and his girlfriend, and the guy didn’t want to get married. I wasn’t thinking that they were living together. (If Scarlett mentioned that, I must have missed it, and it wouldn’t be the first time I missed a post! 🙂 )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

 

Thanks — I was thinking that Scarlett was talking about a guy and his girlfriend, and the guy didn’t want to get married. I wasn’t thinking that they were living together. (If Scarlett mentioned that, I must have missed it, and it wouldn’t be the first time I missed a post! 🙂 )

I don’t know since it was a comment or two by a stranger but we have talked about all variations of it on this thread.  Either way it comes down to ‘well this person is great, but there is only so much I am willing to do to blend our lives together because the risk is too great.’

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

The only time I've seen lawyers involved in a break up without divorce is when kids are involved, it was in fact a common law marriage, and or they bought stuff with both their names on it.

*Purposely* having kids with someone you wouldn't want to be tied to legally is just... well not smart to me.  Kids legally bind you in one way or another to another person for no less than 18 years. And not even divorce changes that most of the time. So the thought process in that decision is just ... confusing to me to say the least.

Completely agree. I will never understand the whole “baby daddy” thing. I just can’t comprehend people who say they are not yet ready to marry someone because that is too big of a commitment, but they are ready to go ahead and have a baby with them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don’t know since it was a comment or two by a stranger but we have talked about all variations of it on this thread.  Either way it comes down to ‘well this person is great, but there is only so much I am willing to do to blend our lives together because the risk is too great.’

 

 

 

Thanks! I thought I might have missed something.  🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought I would be in a place where I could say I understand that reasoning, but now I do. The past 5 years of my marriage have been horrible as I have suffered the consequences emotionally, legally, and financially of my husband's gradual decline from early onset alzheimer's. Some of what has happened he truly cannot be blamed for, some is debatable. I am facing years of care-taking and all the legal and financial responsibilities, and we will end up very poor. As a caretaker, I will be very lucky to survive it without serious health consequences myself. I am being asked daily to pull forth all the forgiveness and loving that person can possibly provide unconditionally in some very difficult (sometimes downright hostile) circumstances and with no appreciation or recognition from my husband.  Yes, I would think twice about a second marriage. A person only has so much of that to give.

ETA: I would imagine that is how some of the previously mentioned people also feel.

Edited by shanvan
  • Sad 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2019 at 12:03 PM, Murphy101 said:

I don't understand why people think of what parents have as belonging to their kids.  It doesn't. I highly encourage people to give what they want to go to certain people before they die.  That's really the only way to be sure it actually happens.

Money is not the only issue--to some people, not even the main issue.

Not long after my grandmother died, my grandfather (who was in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's, not yet diagnosed) remarried, to a woman he hadn't known very long. He died a couple of years later. A trunk full of my grandmother's photos and other mementos, which my parent and other family members very reasonably expected to inherit, was gone. (The box was in the house, empty.) The monetary value to anybody else was surely nothing. My parent would have gladly come and picked up the items to remove them from the house if asked. All were unhappy.

12 hours ago, Frances said:

Completely agree. I will never understand the whole “baby daddy” thing. I just can’t comprehend people who say they are not yet ready to marry someone because that is too big of a commitment, but they are ready to go ahead and have a baby with them.

Um, that's not always on purpose. Sometimes people act afterward as if it was planned all along (and sure, sometimes it really was).

 

My parents are both happily in long-term, cohabiting relationships with very nice people (and one of them does have a child with that partner). After two divorces each (one from each other and one each from subsequent spouses), they are certainly experienced enough to make up their own minds. If nothing else, the legal divorce process certainly prolonged hostile interactions with one person in particular. (There will definitely be nothing to inherit from one parent anyway, and I have no idea about the other.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whitehawk said:

Money is not the only issue--to some people, not even the main issue.

Not long after my grandmother died, my grandfather (who was in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's, not yet diagnosed) remarried, to a woman he hadn't known very long. He died a couple of years later. A trunk full of my grandmother's photos and other mementos, which my parent and other family members very reasonably expected to inherit, was gone. (The box was in the house, empty.) The monetary value to anybody else was surely nothing. My parent would have gladly come and picked up the items to remove them from the house if asked. All were unhappy.

I didn't say it was all about money. I never said anything about money.

You're example proves my point.  If you want to be sure someone gets what you have - give it to them now because that is the only way you can be sure it will happen. Doesn't matter what it is.  Money. Pictures. Mom's China or great granddad's rifle.  If you don't already own it, you should have no expectation of having it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

If you want to be sure someone gets what you have - give it to them now because that is the only way you can be sure it will happen. Doesn't matter what it is.  Money. Pictures. Mom's China or great granddad's rifle.  If you don't already own it, you should have no expectation of having it.

 

None of my grandfather's four children should have expected to get the family pictures, or to be told if his wife was dumping them while he was alive but no longer able to object? I can't agree with that. It would've been nice if someone had picked up on his cognitive decline before he got married, but grief and dementia can look a lot alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whitehawk said:

 

None of my grandfather's four children should have expected to get the family pictures, or to be told if his wife was dumping them while he was alive but no longer able to object? I can't agree with that. It would've been nice if someone had picked up on his cognitive decline before he got married, but grief and dementia can look a lot alike.

 

It doesn’t matter what we agree with, the facts are that they had no legal right to it just because they were his children. Fact is, if he had shared that with them before death it wouldn’t have been an issue afterwards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

It doesn’t matter what we agree with, the facts are that they had no legal right to it just because they were his children. Fact is, if he had shared that with them before death it wouldn’t have been an issue afterwards. 

 

They may not have had a legal right to the family photos, but I certainly wouldn’t fault them for having expected to receive them. 

And realistically, the photos may have been very important to him and he wanted to keep them until he died... and then, due to his illness, he wasn’t in a mental state to think about giving them to the family.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Catwoman said:

 

They may not have had a legal right to the family photos, but I certainly wouldn’t fault them for having expected to receive them. 

And realistically, the photos may have been very important to him and he wanted to keep them until he died... and then, due to his illness, he wasn’t in a mental state to think about giving them to the family.

 

I don’t fault them either. But the law does. Sucks but thems the rules. 

Hence my ardent and firm encouragement for people to give while they are alive. 

Especially in the case of photos. It’s no big deal to copy the ones they want to keep in view. But loved ones need to make those requests NOW and should presume absolutely nothing about what might or should happen after death.

And honestly, it’s just easier to deal with before death. Less crap to manage in the midst of grief.  Less argument about what the deceased wanted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Families and passing stuff on is its own crazy gig.  My grandmother arranged to donate a chair that had been in the family to a museum when she died - but her sisters came in and stole liberated it before it was taken over because they thought she had no right to do it.  People just don't think ahead enough, and assume others will be sane and thoughtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

Families and passing stuff on is its own crazy gig.  My grandmother arranged to donate a chair that had been in the family to a museum when she died - but her sisters came in and stole liberated it before it was taken over because they thought she had no right to do it.  People just don't think ahead enough, and assume others will be sane and thoughtful.

Agreed. It's nuts.

My grandmother wanted to give a way a lot of her important things before she was in ill health because she wanted to avoid drama. She approached her five children on three different occasions asking them what they would like so she could label things, or settle issues if some of them wanted the same item. They wouldn't talk about it. Wouldn't take anything. I think that it was because for them it meant emotionally acknowledging that grandma was getting old and die, and they didn't want to think about it having already lost grandpa. But she didn't take it that way. She thought it meant that they didn't want any of her things, that there was nothing of value, not even photos, to them. So she approached 11 grandchildren about it. We all called each other, had great conversations about it, and decided who wanted what. I got my grandmother's ruby thumbprint glassware, another cousin took a handpainted light fixture that was over the couch, something my grandmother had adored and was very unique. Another cousin took her guitar which she played for her kids when they were young, spending hours singing to them, a tradition she continued when we grands were all little. And so on....some of the boys divied up grandpa's tools, and his guns. Bit by bit things moved on to their new homes until my aunt finally got upset on one of her visits. My grandmother stood her ground and said the grandchildren got these items because we cared enough to have a discussion about it with her. Oh my gosh. The tantrums, three aunts, my father figure (other uncle had recently died so he was not involved, it was legendary. The oldest, an aunt I had been very close to, was just so upset about the glassware that I thought she'd have a stroke. I drove all the way home to box it up and bring it back to her. As soon as I walked through the door with the first box, my uncle (her husband) had a fit because auntie had inherited nine sets of expensive, antique china worth thousands of dollars from his mother and he wanted to know exactly where she thought she'd keep it. They had a fight, and when it was over, she refused to take the glassware. Sigh....

The tea cup and saucer collection had gone untouched so that was offered to auntie, but my father figure birthed a cow because he wanted it all since he had been the one to buy them for her. (He had a tradition through his teen and young adult years of buying her a new cup and saucer for every birthday and mother's day.) My mom didn't want them. It wasn't like he was ever going to do anything with them.

Melt down after melt down. When it was all said and done, nothing changed. Grandma was so appalled by the attitudes of her own children that she demanded we grands keep the items we'd asked for, and we grand kids were so disgusted by our parents behavior that we all kind of hinted that we wished we could have them all committed right there on the spot.

It was an ugly family meeting.

My mother never got anything from her side of the family. Grandma had remarried and the man was abusive. He took all of her photos, china, etc from her first marriage and burned them in the yard. 

Do not ever assume that the splitting up of the belongings of the dearly departed or soon to be departed will go well. Better just steal yourself for the drama, and then if it goes well, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

And when there is remarriage, it is a serious problem because everything becomes marital property. The kids may view it as theirs, but yet, none of it, not the house, the money, the left over toys and books from their childhoods, the photos, nothing. It's a real problem for a lot of families.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my father died, my step-mother wasn't ready to let go of any of his items although she wanted me and my sister to eventually have them.

A few years later she passed away.  I didn't attend the funeral (out of state) because I had a fragile 2-week-old baby.

A few years after that I realized that I *really* wanted my dad's Vietnam medals.

I contacted my step-brother and he said that the items had already been given to one of his nephews.  I was disappointed, but I knew that I had no legal claim to the items.

A few weeks later my step-brother called me and told me that his nephew agreed that I should have the medals.  We arranged for my mom to pick up the items.  (A little awkward, but she was willing.)  When my mom gave me the medals she also gave me a photo album of my father's family that my step-brother had found in my father's things.

I was so grateful to have them!  

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2019 at 8:54 AM, whitehawk said:

Money is not the only issue--to some people, not even the main issue.

Not long after my grandmother died, my grandfather (who was in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's, not yet diagnosed) remarried, to a woman he hadn't known very long. He died a couple of years later. A trunk full of my grandmother's photos and other mementos, which my parent and other family members very reasonably expected to inherit, was gone. (The box was in the house, empty.) The monetary value to anybody else was surely nothing. My parent would have gladly come and picked up the items to remove them from the house if asked. All were unhappy.

Um, that's not always on purpose. Sometimes people act afterward as if it was planned all along (and sure, sometimes it really was).

 

My parents are both happily in long-term, cohabiting relationships with very nice people (and one of them does have a child with that partner). After two divorces each (one from each other and one each from subsequent spouses), they are certainly experienced enough to make up their own minds. If nothing else, the legal divorce process certainly prolonged hostile interactions with one person in particular. (There will definitely be nothing to inherit from one parent anyway, and I have no idea about the other.)

 

I know a couple who just got married on New Year's. They have been together for 27 years and have 2 kids, both now grown. They just hadn't wanted to make it legal until recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2019 at 5:22 PM, Catwoman said:

 

But if you weren’t married, why would things need to be divided at all? In a dating relationship, you have your house and your stuff and the other person has their own house and their stuff, and finances are kept separate. 

People live together. Live together for a few decades, and who's copy of The Stand is this, not to mention everything else in the shared house (did you buy this silverware or did I?), even if you continue to rent, gets harder and harder, even if you keep separate bank accounts and don't co-own any major assets like a house.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ravin said:

People live together. Live together for a few decades, and who's copy of The Stand is this, not to mention everything else in the shared house (did you buy this silverware or did I?), even if you continue to rent, gets harder and harder, even if you keep separate bank accounts and don't co-own any major assets like a house.

 

Yes, I agree, but living together is not a requirement when people are dating, even when they are a couple for many years. It is a decision they make, and the consequences may very well be that things will get messy if they break up, but they can avoid a lot of that if they live in separate homes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

Yes, I agree, but living together is not a requirement when people are dating, even when they are a couple for many years. It is a decision they make, and the consequences may very well be that things will get messy if they break up, but they can avoid a lot of that if they live in separate homes.

 

I do think this is true, but I don't think it's actually a very common scenario where people date long term, and don't live together.  Even when they say that they don't want to marry again because of bad experiences of some kind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I do think this is true, but I don't think it's actually a very common scenario where people date long term, and don't live together.  Even when they say that they don't want to marry again because of bad experiences of some kind.

 

 

Actually, we have quite a few friends and clients who are doing exactly that, so I’m not sure it’s as rare as you think it is. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

 

Actually, we have quite a few friends and clients who are doing exactly that, so I’m not sure it’s as rare as you think it is. 🙂

I know several couples like that. Especially the over 50ish couples. No desire to move in together even though they’ve been a “couple” for 15+ years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WendyAndMilo said:

I've always thought that that would be the perfect sort of relationship: separate houses, separate everything, but living next door to each other for something of a long-term, committed, friends-with-benefits relationship. 

I know at least two do not have sex. I suspect some of the others aren’t but it’s not something I’m going to ask. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WendyAndMilo said:

I've always thought that that would be the perfect sort of relationship: separate houses, separate everything, but living next door to each other for something of a long-term, committed, friends-with-benefits relationship. 

I feel similarly.  I've read through this entire thread and I'm one of those people who has very strict parameters on what I'd consider for marriage again. I'm also 50+, so anyone I date has their own "baggage" along with my own "baggage," not that I've dated since the divorce. Marriage would happen after a long list of criteria, like being friends first to marriage last - if ever. 

Separate living spaces would be okay with me for a long while. I share a house with my mother  and son, I don't want to try and cram another person in this household, even if I love them dearly. Elder care, pets, material possessions, children, etc. Part of it is my own issues, like not giving up the independence I've worked so hard to gain in the last few years. My marriage was controlling, not only would I have to have an intense trust in the person, I'd have to guard myself not to fall into old habits. So that let's share a relationship to let's share every aspect of our physical lives will be a long tip-toed journey. 

I also no longer believe that marriage is some magic ticket that somehow cements a relationship. So I can definitely see someone being "the one" and yet be hesitant to get married. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Catwoman said:

 

Actually, we have quite a few friends and clients who are doing exactly that, so I’m not sure it’s as rare as you think it is. 🙂

 

I would say that is the group I see it in most often, but in terms of all the people I know, it's a small number.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

I can think of an example right off the top of my head - they met much later in life and both wanted to preserve their own space so they had room for their hobbies and didn’t drive one another nuts. They dated and were essentially as good as married for nearly three decades, until he passed away unexpectedly last year.

 

Sure, so can I.  But that doesn't make it that common.  I can think of as many who live together but don't want to commit to marriage (and I don't include in that people who live together but just don't really think it's important to do the legal thing bt have basically the same personal commitment anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Seasider too said:

 

Medicaid does not recognize prenuptial agreements when qualify for long term care. It is a HUGE deal when senior citizens remarry.  

MANY state or federal programs if any kind do not recognize any legal paperwork at all. Even if you aren’t married. For example, food stamps requires everyone who lives at the address to submit birth cents, SSN and income. Kids 18+. Grandma’s pension. All of which is money the mom applying might not be able to access to feed her family but it counts against her for food stamps. For that matter, she could be married to an ass who refuses to give financial information and not be able to get food stamps then either. 

And in Oklahoma, all medical debts are automatically communal marriage debt. Prenups won’t change that here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

MANY state or federal programs if any kind do not recognize any legal paperwork at all. Even if you aren’t married. For example, food stamps requires everyone who lives at the address to submit birth cents, SSN and income. Kids 18+. Grandma’s pension. All of which is money the mom applying might not be able to access to feed her family but it counts against her for food stamps. For that matter, she could be married to an ass who refuses to give financial information and not be able to get food stamps then either. 

And in Oklahoma, all medical debts are automatically communal marriage debt. Prenups won’t change that here. 

That's not quite accurate. For SNAP, you have to disclose who all lives there, but if they do not eat together with you, you don't have to give their income and such.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ravin said:

That's not quite accurate. For SNAP, you have to disclose who all lives there, but if they do not eat together with you, you don't have to give their income and such.

In practice it's nearly completely accurate bc they presume if someone lives with you, they are eating with you.  You can say otherwise all you want but they are going to count it anyways.  I've never heard of anyone ever convincing their worker that someone that lives with them isn't eating their food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...