Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Gender, wealth, and inheritance

An essay on Slate.com considers various aspects of inheriting wealth. The female writer discusses the expectations and burdens of a family's presumed dynasty, especially how things like "philanthropy, longevity, and serial marriages begetting multiple heirs have eroded patriarchal estates."

In the end, the trouble and heartache may outweigh the financial benefit of the estate. This is especially true if the will or trust was not well planned. Consider the following excerpt:
Economists say there are four bequest motives: accidental, egoistic, strategic, or altruistic. People leave money to others because they are bighearted, manipulative, self-centered, or disorganized. Endowing a middle-aged offspring's undercapitalized retirement is not on the list. As my contemporaries take, well, stock, I hear frequent tales of affluent fathers lacing their legacies with dissension, hurt feelings, or misunderstanding by passing on assets in an ungenerous or disorderly manner. Unsettlingly, their daughters find themselves unraveling wills, insurance policies, and asset preservation plans rather than simply mourning their parents.
Based on her experience, the writer recommends personal financial independence as the key to a secure future, rather than relying on a family windfall. Good advice for everyone no matter our stage in life.

(Photo by Eleaf; used by permission.)

Hospice care with expansive options

Hospice care has become more familiar as we as a society acknowledge the natural last stages of dying. Along with the physical stages of death, a patient frequently reflects on relationships, personal accomplishments, and spirituality. Now, even when a person is not necessarily religious, chaplains and similar advisors offer comfort and companionship on the final journey of life. The New York Times recently reported on the nonsectarian dimension emerging in hospice chaplaincy.

In the Madison, Wisconsin region, HospiceCare offers in-home and hospice facility care options. It also offers family services, medical information, and other assistance. You can check out their excellent website for more information.

(Photo by tiarescott; used by permission.)

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

How public do we want our personal health?

Personal illness, even serious illness like cancer, sends us into an inner retreat sometimes. In a recent "My Turn" essay in Newsweek a cancer survivor describes his ambivalence in beating his cancer when others have not and in the public acknowledgment of surviving embodied in the Cancer Society's Relay for Life.

Here's an excerpt:
When darkness fell, and I'd suffered through the promised laps, I sat on the ground with my family beneath the moon. We listened to the roll call of those locals who had died from cancer—names of old friends and familiar mountain surnames—lilting off into the cool night air. Brown paper candle luminaries representing victims formed a circle of light on the ground around the track, and people took turns reading as photos of the fallen were projected on a movie screen.

It was then that I realized something profound about my day. It wasn't humiliating. It wasn't cheesy, or corny, but just right. My mom was right to sign me up. The people that really know me—the ones who watched me grow up, who coached me in little league and went to the Presbyterian church with my family—were here for me and all of the rest of the men and women who'd lived through their own lonely cancer hell. It mattered to them that I was still here. That is no small thing.

Book review: "But I Don't Want Eldercare"


Here is a helpful book review from Madison's Capital Times on a caregiver's guide to helping aging parents stay well, But I Don't Want Eldercare.

The review includes 8 rules from the book--my favorite two are "Your parents and your are the experts," and "The labels must go."

The personal side of medical practice


"I thought about how easy it is, with the time pressures of medical practice, to ignore social history, habits, the sorts of things that make a patient into a real person — and vice versa."

That's how a physician reflected upon going to a young patient's funeral and learning about the personal life of the man he had been treating. The complete New York Times essay is here. The sentiment is probably true for many people we think we "know"--professional acquaintances, clients, neighbors. Imagine the richness we can add to our lives if we simply say to someone, "Tell me about yourself."
(Photo by Kerry; used by permission.)

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

A new link to Alzheimer's association



I have added the Alzheimer's Association to my helpful links on the right side of the blog. The excellent site offers an abundance of information, especially about medical information, local resources, and care options.

Recently, the New York Times reported that Alzheimer's disease is more prevalent in Latino populations. Researchers are exploring the connections between income, education, and dementia. Also, family and cultural dynamics are factors in the care and treatment of the disease. Even if the research is too preliminary to be conclusive, it is very interesting.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Assisted living options


The New York Times' excellent series, "The New Old Age," continues with 10 Things to Know About Assisted Living. The general information is quite good about what to consider in looking at assisted living arrangements. Another general web resource for all types of elder residential options is "A Place for Mom," which is a national referral service.

However, remember that although nursing homes are heavily regulated on the federal and state levels, assisted living apartments and homes are regulated much less, and only on the state level. So, whether looking at the services a facility offers, the medical options, or any other contract terms for assisted living, consult local or state resources too. For example, in Wisconsin, Community Based Residential Facilities (CBRFs, for short) can offer home-like settings for many types of needs, (dementia/memory care, for one), but CBRFs can only offer limited medical care. As a starter on Wisconsin resources, see the Department of Health Services website section on CBRF resources.
For more information on a national level, check out the Assisted Living Consumer Alliance.
(Photo by jonrawlinson; used by permission.)

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Glossary for wills

Sometimes it seems like lawyers speak a language all their own. Over the centuries of English and American law, traditional terms and "legalese" have formed around how people inherit property, whether by a will or in cases where there is no will.

Here is a glossary of a few terms.

Will: (1) A document by which a person directs his or her estate to be distributed upon death (Black's Law Dictionary). (2) Under the Wisconsin statutory definition, a will includes any addition or amendment (usually known as a "codicile") made after the original will. Even though making a will seems straight-forward to most people, formalities of how it is written, who witnesses it, and how it may be changed or revoked are all part of state law. For example, here is a link to the Wisconsin statutory section on wills.

Testator: A person who has made a will; esp., a person who dies leaving a will. (Black's Law Dictionary). Likewise, "testate" is the state of dying with a valid will, see "intestacy" below. This is a simple definition, but the term is not in our everyday vocabulary.

Heir: (1) A person who, under the laws of intestacy [see definition below], is entitled to receive an intestate decedent's property. (Black's Law Dictionary). Although many people consider any descendant who may receive a decedent's property, either by will or by law, to be an "heir," the term only applies to those who receive when there is no will. Under Wisconsin law (and probably most other states), a surviving spouse is an heir.

Beneficiary: (1) A person nominated in a will to receive an interest in property other than in a fiduciary capacity. (Wis. Stat. 851.03). (2) Black's Law Dictionary offers a broad definition that includes a person who receives a benefit under any type of legal arrangement, such as will, trust, insurance policy, or guardianship. (Of course, Wisconsin statutes define "beneficiary" differently in different contexts too, but for probate purposes, it is defined as in (1).)

Intestacy: The state or condition of a person's having died without a valid will. (Black's Law Dictionary). How an intestate person's estate is distributed is determined by state law. Here is a link to Wisconsin statutes for intestate succession.

Issue: Descendants of a person, i.e., children, grandchildren, etc., including those who were adopted or born outside of marriage. (See, e.g., Wis. Stat. 851.13). Again, the concept is not difficult, but the term is not in our everyday vocabulary.

Residue: The part of a decedent's estate remaining after payment of all debts, expenses, statutory claims, taxes, and testamentary gifts have been made. (Black's Law Dictionary). This is the part of a person's estate that is "left over" after specific distributions (like "I give my diamond brooch to my granddaughter Susie") are made. For most people, this is the bulk of their estate, which is given in proportions rather than in set amounts because the value or nature of the estate is not known until the testator's death.

Executor (also known as "personal representative"): A person named by a testator to carry out the provisions in the testator's will. (Black's Law Dictionary). In Wisconsin, an executor is called a "personal representative," and Wisconsin statute provides for a personal representative's powers and duties.

(Photo by myuibe; used by permission.)

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Connecticut now has same-sex marriage

From the Washington Post: "The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a state ban on same-sex marriage [on October 10], ruling that it 'discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation' in violation of the state constitution." Read the entire article from the Post.

The Human Rights Campaign offered this jubilant announcement of the decision. Now, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California have full marriage equality for all couples.

(Photo by _www.alvaroarriagada.com ; used by permission.)

Home plate as my head stone


Apparently many baseballs fans want to stay close to their favorite sport, even after they are gone to the great beyond. This New York Times article considers the motivations and methods behind people having their ashes scattered at one of the city's ball parks, not to mention the ambivalence when a stadium is demolished.

"No one can say how many people’s ashes were sneaked in, often in film canisters or plastic baggies, and scattered at the two ballparks [Memorial Park and Shea Stadium]. Some relatives had access the teams say they do not allow. Ms. Hasson said her father had known someone on the grounds crew who let her in before a game, let her husband run the bases and let two of her father’s friends sit in the Mets’ dugout. . . . [Then,] 'the guys who worked on the grounds crew raked the ashes into the mound so it wasn’t obvious.'”

Just a few months ago, the state of Wisconsin began offering a form (known as "authorization for final disposition"), which allows a person to designate someone (as a "representative") to make decisions regarding the disposition of the person's body after death. Typically, the range of decisions encompass arrangements for funeral services, cremation, burial, etc. By designating someone, a person can avoid potential disputes among loved ones. The representative named has first priority in making such arrangements. (The statute also names the priority of family members who can make decisions, even if the form is not used.)

Also, the state form allows the person to give directions for any of the arrangement. According to the statute, the representative is required to follow the directions of the deceased, "unless the directions, instructions, and suggestions exceed available resources from the decedent’s estate or are unlawful or unless there is no realistic possibility of compliance."

(Photo by Mayr; used by permission.)

International adoptions are down


For most Americans, "international adoption" means American couples adopting children from other countries. Over the past couple decades, this type of adoption has benefited children in need of families and U.S. couples who have usually exhausted state-side options for adoption or assisted reproduction. However, when standards by foreign governments or the scruples of certain agencies have been lax, issues such as child trafficking have arisen. Other times, children have been separated from their birth parents without full documentation of the parents' voluntarily giving up their right. When countries monitor their adoption process more closely or provide adoptive parents within their own nation, the prospects for adoptions by Americans from those countries slow or dwindle.

Recently, China has taken measures that make the process longer and more expensive for an American couple to adopt a Chinese orphan. Newsweek reported the details of the shrinking pool of international children available for adoption. The magazine website's interactive chart shows trends of various countries over the past decade.

Similarly, Korea is promoting adoption within its country. The New York Times reports "last year, for the first time, more babies here [in South Korea] were adopted by South Koreans than foreigners, as the government announced recently with great fanfare: 1,388 local adoptions compared with 1,264 foreign ones. What is more, South Korea — which still is one of the top countries from which Americans adopt — has set a goal of eliminating foreign adoptions altogether by 2012."

As plans in various countries continue and succeed, the "best interests" of the children involved will most likely be served, such as preserving their cultural and ethnic identities, assisting their sense of self-identity, and maintaining any family ties that may remain. The flip-side for many Americans is the shrinking range of opportunities to address a future without children to call their own.
(Photo by iandeth; used by permission.)

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Special needs trusts

The Wall Street Journal recently included an article on special needs trusts.

Here's a bit of statistical information from the article:

More than 41 million Americans, or almost 15% of the population age 5 and older,
have some type of disability, according to the 2007 Census survey data. Some 6.2% of children age 5 to 15, or 2.8 million children, have disabilities, the Census Bureau found. And individuals with disabilities are living longer than ever before. That means that many disabled children will outlive the parents who support them.
To address the future needs of such children when they become adults and especially after their parents are gone, parents can prepare documents for the health-related and financial well-being of their children. Parents should consider special needs trusts, sharing information with relatives for the relatives' estate plans which may benefit the child with disabilities, powers of attorney or guardianships, and letters for caregivers. Because the laws regarding special needs trusts are complicated and vary from state to state, it is highly adviseable that parents check with a well-qualified attorney when they wish to explore or pursue such a trust.

One starting point, especially for those with modest-sized estates, is the Wisconsin Pooled and Community Trusts (WisPACT) website. WisPACT is a special needs trust with subaccounts for individual beneficiaries, where each subaccount may be relatively small, but the pooled assets of all the beneficiaries can be professionally invested and managed.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Frozen embryos and the couples who make them


Debate and concerns over frozen embryos and assisted reproduction have been churning for several years now. However, there is no resolution on the horizon. The issues are deeply personal, ethical, and often legal. The range of feelings and opinions is captured well in this L.A. Times article. For many couples with embryos they no longer want or need, the compromise between implanting the embryos for pregnancy and destroying them is donating them for research. But such a decision is not straight-forward. Many in the political arena wish to elevate embryos to a status (nearly) equal to full personhood.

An excerpt:
"People are not quite sure where this set of issues belongs," says Yuval Levin, bioethics director for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, an ecumenical think tank in Washington that publishes the New Atlantis. "To some it's an element of the abortion debate. For other people it has to do with science and medicine. We've never really thought through what the moral status of the embryo is."

That's beginning to happen. The proposed Colorado amendment states, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization." If it is passed, the courts would have to interpret the meaning of those words, says Kristi Burton, sponsor of the initiative and founder of Colorado for Equal Rights, which focuses on the rights of unborn children. The goal of the amendment, says Burton, a college student, "is to respect and protect all life."
Fertility advocates are skeptical that "personhood laws" wouldn't limit their choices for reproductive healthcare. In August, Resolve released a statement opposing the Colorado amendment.

"The motivation is abortion," says R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "If the Supreme Court allows states to declare embryos as personhood, you would be in a position to say immediately that all abortions have to stop."

(Photo by cyancey; used by permission.)

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

A new link: Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups

"The Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups, a grassroots membership organization directed by seniors in Wisconsin, pursues justice and quality of life for people of all ages through legal and legislative advocacy, education and leadership development." (Mission statement of the coalition.)

CWAG's website has abundant resources for elders, including information on legal services and resources. They also have newsletters and other publications in a resources section.
Needless to say, the organization and its website are a valuable resource to the community of elders, their families, and their advocates. I have added the link to the CWAG website to my list of sites on the right.




Monday, October 6, 2008

Who gets the engagement ring when a couple breaks up?


First-year law school property class included the topic of who gets the engagement ring when a couple breaks up before the wedding. As in many cases, the answer is "it depends." In such a case, it depends on state law; but many states consider an engagement ring a conditional gift, which must be returned if the condition (of getting married) is not met.

A recent story in the New York Times, looks at the various aspects of this question. For many lay people, the question is not always a legal one, but rather an emotional and personal question of who deserves the ring, i.e., whether the jilted party should have some consolation prize.

In exploring the topic more deeply, the article also considers whether the ring should be returned if one of the parties dies before the wedding (which still technically prevents the condition from being met).

Also, paralleling a recent listserv query of family law attorneys in Wisconsin, the article asks whether the ring becomes marital property subject to division in case of divorce. In discussing Wisconsin law, some attorneys considered it a completed gift because the wedding had occurred, therefore it would be the wife's individual property. Others cited state statute that property brought to the marriage or acquired during the marriage was subject to property division. Still others noted that the statute also excludes gifted or inherited property. BUT, yet another attorney noted that the statute applies to gifts from someone OTHER than one of the parties. Obviously, if you ask two attorneys any question, you're likely to get three or more opinions.

As the article mentions too, often the value of the ring is not enough to warrant the legal fees to litigate over who gets it, except for the case in which the ring was worth nearly a quarter million dollars!

(If the couple (or one of the parties) had assets like that, wouldn't you think they would have had a pre-nup? But, that would interfere with the romance, huh.)

(Photo by Somma, used by permission.)

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Collaborative divorce means less fighting


Family Circle magazine ran this collaborative divorce article, which is a good, straight-forward introduction to the idea that divorce doesn't have to be a battle to the end. If divorcing spouses agree that they want to part on peaceable terms, especially for the sake of children, then the collaborative process is a strong option instead of the adversarial, "I'll see you in court" approach.

The article says that "those willing to put in the effort up front are likely to encounter the following win-win advantages: less bitterness, lower expenses, quicker results, and a custom solution."

Although the results vary depending on each couple and their circumstances, collaborative divorce attorneys I've spoken with say the savings of cost and time may be minimal in the period up to the judgment of divorce. However, over time there is a probable savings because the couple usually does not have to re-visit issues of child support and alimony (maintenance), not to mention pay for therapy for the children traumatized by a nasty divorce. In addition, nearly all couples who use the collaborative process have greater control over the process and the outcome, compared to adversarial divorce, which is subject to a litigation timeframe and the judge's determination of the case.

Of course, collaborative divorce is not suitable for every divorcing couple; personal temperaments or particular situations may be too volatile for the collaborative process to succeed. For example, couples in marriages involving domestic violence or substance abuse may not have adequate trust to proceed with collaborative divorce.
A couple weeks ago, I attended a two-day seminar by the Collaborative Family Law Council of Wisconsin. (After I told my mother about my positive experience with the training, she noticed the article in Family Circle and sent it to me.) Also, the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals website has more information.

(Image by chavezonico, used by permission.)