Need some feedback please?

[Raelesyn]

Over the past few months the soon to be ex-wife and I have been going thru divorce proceedings. We got the ball rolling at one of those places that advertise fast cheap no-contest divorces...we get the paperwork..get all the ducks we think are in order only to have the Judge come back to her and tell her she needs this done and that done...we get all that done. Now the judge wants for her to have an addendum added to the paperwork stipulating that we won't go after each others retirements and social security...THEN says that I need to get a 100,000 life insurance policy and name my 18 year old son as the beneficiary? Anyone ever hear of this before? Mind you I live in N.J...

Thoughts please?

Rael

[Lurker]

No idea if the site is accurate, but there's a New Jersey Divorce FAQ that answers that question.

"Can a New Jersey court make a parent carry life insurance for the benefit of a child?"

The answer is "yes." A New Jersey court can compel a parent to carry life insurance for the benefit of a child, even though the parent never carried life insurance before. However, the determination is obviously fact sensitive and must take into consideration the financial circumstances of the parties.

The obligation to support a child is more multi-faceted then just a paying a set sum each week. Included in the obligations of a parent are the obligation to provide health care insurance; the obligation to provide for a child’s education; and the obligation to protect the child’s source of support in the event of the death of a parent. This latter protection is most often provided through the vehicle of life insurance.

Furthermore, New Jersey has a specific statute that compels a parent, once a divorce, nullity, or separate maintenance action has been filed, to maintain life insurance coverage, pending the outcome of the action. Of course, either party may apply to the court to have the financial burden shared, or shifted to the other party.

The question of whether a wife can compel her ex-husband to name her as the beneficiary of the policy is more problematic. A court will often order that the wife be named as a beneficiary in her capacity as trustee for the children as opposed to being a beneficiary in her own right. Furthermore, in many cases the court will order that another person, such as an individual trustee or a bank, be named as a beneficiary.

Joseph Weinberg is a senior partner of the Haddonfield, NJ-based firm of Weinberg, McCormick, Chatzinoff & Zoll. He has practiced family law in New Jersey for more than 35 years and has received numerous honors for his dedicated commitment to the practice of family law; Weinberg was recently recognized as one of the “Ten Leaders of Matrimonial and Divorce Law of Southern New Jersey.

[Harlowe]

Is 18 years old still considered a child though, I thought that was when support ended?

[Ddrak]

Thoughts - if a judge says it then do it. I would ask the judge how long you would be required to keep up the policy for (it can't be open ended), but be nice about it. Make the assumption he's doing the best he knows how for your son and work from there.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Seems the judge in the matter thought about things that neither of your did. You assuredly want an agreement that covers your retirement savings. And you should have some level of life insurance for yourself if nothing less than to cover funeral expenses so your ex and your son don't have to watch you get burried by the state in some unmarked grave.

This is of course assuming you have no current life insurance policy. Just communicate with the judge on the specifics of the policy and what it is meant to cover.