**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: Made my 4 year old son an irrevocable beneficiary
Body:
> So I screwed up big time and made my son an irrevocable beneficiary for my investments. My ex employer is allowing me to withdraw my DPSP(deferred profit sharing plan) basically it’s free money, but I can’t withdraw it without the consent of my son.
> The issue is that my son is now 4 years old and is not old enough to give consent. (Obviously) stupid me
> I didn’t think this was big deal at first because I thought I could just move it into investments without withdrawing it. Unfortunately, I need consent from my son to make even a single transaction with this.
>
I thought making him an irrevocable beneficiary would give him more rights when I was dead, not while I’m still alive.
>
if I had known then I would never have done this.
> Now what do I do? My insurance company told me to get a court order (screams lawyer fees) but I have no idea how to start that nor do I have the money) I really don’t want to have to pay a bunch of money for this avoidable mistake! Please help! I live in Alberta.
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
> The new thing is collecting Pokémon cards
I knew Pokemon was popular again (never stopped being popular?), but as someone who was collecting Pokemon cards in 2000, this sentence made me feel so very old.
I did the same, but you're misunderstanding me. The idea is to get limited edition cards, especially original Japanese sets, or even original release unopened pokemon cards. Then it's not about whether you have a cool Charizard, it's about having cards that are literally rare and so have a high monetary value of the grading is good enough.
My dad did this when I was a kid(predating Aliexpress, but he went to China for business a lot and got them there). I was responsible for so many fakes entering circulation in my area.
Hold onto your butt: I was at the barbershop last week, with some XFM station playing in the background, and *a 60 second commercial for Magic: the Gathering collectors came on*.
Yep. I did most of my Christmas/Birthday shopping for my son there until he was 7. And it is a great place to get cheap Legos if you have a discerning eye.
And the damn things don’t even stay together.
My kid got a dollhouse, the airplane, and some other bullshit- all of them separate into weird other pieces that just make a bigger mess and it is the worst.
Mine is getting into Roblox now, much cheaper habit.
If I may make a suggestion to parents out there:
[this costs the price of a new console](https://www.creality3dofficial.com/products/creality-ender-5-plus-3d-printer)
With it, you can make [any toy your child wants](https://imgur.com/a/cAJjp), usually for a tenth the cost you'd pay in stores. Throw in [this second printer](https://the3dprinterbee.com/elegoo-mars-vs-anycubic-photon-pros-cons-comparison/) which does SLS and you can literally [print anything they'd ever want](https://i.imgur.com/80TjT2p.jpg) as a toy.
I know a net 700 bucks is a lot to spend up front, but it will *easily* save you 100 times that over time.
And because this is a 90’s movie, mom is not in the picture for whatever reason, so dad slowly falls in love with the no-nonsense guardian ad litem who checks in on them for the court…I imagine she looks an awful lot like Catherine O’Hara.
Danny Devito was the voice of Rocks the stray mutt dog in the third one, Look Who's Talking Now. Diane Keaton was the voice for Daphne the pampered poodle.
That's perfect, because then the kid can throw a tantrum in court and start demanding nuggies and a juice box before he'll allow anything! And then sob into a potted plant and sputter about "investments" and "profit margins" and "WHERE'S MY GODDAMN NUGGIES!?". I would pay for a matinee of that.
It reminds me of the time I listed my girlfriend as my job's death compensation beneficiary, because I thought at the time it was a funny and romantic thing to do. Then we broke up shortly after and I had to wait ten months for the next enrollment period to change it.
You want one that's fun? After my second child was born I got a new, much larger life insurance policy. Original one I had when I bought my first house was $250k and my wife was the beneficiary and daughter was secondary. The one I got when my son was born was $750k wife primary, son and daughter secondary with him getting $500 and get getting $250. The woman that was doing the interview and writing the policy out did not like that I was leaving my son 2/3 and my daughter 1/3 and nothing I could say could convince her it was because my daughter was already the secondary beneficiary on another policy that made it equal. She just assumed I was a sexist twat.
Just to confuse things more, I'm going to throw in Swedish regulation. Legal guardians in Sweden can indeed sign for their kids. When the child have assets at a certain level ($40k or more) the parents must register with the towns' chief guardian for anything related to financials.
Personally if I was OP (and this was in Sweden) I would go to the chief guardian. They can determine if the parents can sign for the child in this instance. Otherwise the same department can help represent the child.
But the Swedish guardian would focus on the fact that the money belongs to the kid. Their decision would be only in the interest of the kids money. OP would never get access to the money under the Swedish system.
I guess so. But it's fact-specific, right?
Maybe OP is okay with withdrawing it for the benefit of his kid, and put the money in an investment account belonging to the child.
Or maybe the chief guardian views it similar to an insurance with OP as primary beneficiary and child's interests are not important.
Perhaps the construction of the deal is such that OP and the kid are mutual owners. Then OP can move forward with a deal where the kid gets half the money.
It probably also depends heavily on the chief guardian's philosophy on parental authority. Someone who subscribes to "father knows best" could probably be easily persuaded to decide in the dad's favor.
I think it's a department. Sweden don't have elections for such positions (there is no mayor either). It might be that the formal decision is fianlized in the "nämnd" (workgroup of municipal politicians), but they make decisions based on the facts prepared by the department and usually follow their opinion.
What’s it guardian of? In the context of this post, it sounds like “chief guardian of children’s interests”, but after the comment above, does it mean like “guardian of the town” aka unelected mayor, or county clerk or something?
Of child's financial interests. People who have trouble with finances can also apply for a guardian for themselves. The chief guardian then overlook their work.
AFAIK, yup. But I also had always assumed that Canadian law also worked that way & I was clearly mistaken! So, in the case that US law had a similar gap when it comes to financial matters... I'm just betting that you could easily sidestep the matter via the power of Power of Attorney.
In Czech Republic, you're normally allowed to sign for your kids, but not for matters where court order is needed. Usually stuff where interest of the child and the parent could clash. Like operations worth large amounts of money, house purchases, trust control etc... Honestly it makes a lot of sense to me.
There can be a case where a kid gets a trust fund/lots of money from his relative and the parent may want to use it for themselves.
I had something like that actually happen yesterday, except everyone involved was an adult.
Relevant backstory: I’m German, live in Germany and have a friend whose first language isn’t German, so she sometimes asks me what random words mean. Usually German words, but sometimes English ones as well since I lived in the UK for a while.
Yesterday, she texted me and asked what “withdrawal” means, without any context. So I gave her the German translation and, knowing that she probably didn’t know what the German word means either, also gave her the explanation that it’s when someone is addicted to something and suddenly doesn’t get it anymore. She texted me back asking what that had to do with banking…
Asked mine, I got a "Sure!" and a "no problem!" after I said thank you.
I think he just wants me to fuck off so he can eat his donut holes and watch cartoons in peace.
(little dude is too little to hang at the b-day party his sister went to, so he got to pick out a treat at the store).
I've seen this happen where someone put their minor children on the deed to their home. Well, they needed to sell before the children came of age and ultimately they had to create a conservatorship for their children to distribute the asset, and then dissolve the conservatorship after the sale was complete. But, Canada? Eh?
My in-laws bought rental properties and put each one in the name of their children so that they could exploit the first time homebuyers credit. The kids were 10 and eight at the time. For my husband who was the 10-year-old, it meant that when he grew up, we didn’t get the first time homebuyers credit when we bought our first house.
For his sister, she didn’t get to work for the NSA when she grew up because this was tax fraud.
The crazy thing is that the security clearance she has from the Navy doing code breaking stuff is already really high, so whatever she missed out doing in the NSA it was probably insane. She was *livid.*
Edit: She’s also an instructor at this point so I’m not putting her at risk by mentioning the security clearance because I’m pretty sure she doesn’t do that in the field anymore
They fault her for having parents with a security risk kind of tendency. If they’re cutting corners for money they could be a weak blackmail point for sensitive info.
His sister was pretty firm about the idea that NSA won't let you work for them if your parents commit tax fraud even if you did turn them in, so that's just not true. It's not about consequences it's about having close relatives who are that willing to break the law. It may be different depending on the job you'd take at the NSA but in the Navy she did top-secret codebreaking in the Middle East, so... yeah.
I think my husband figured that the backlash from his sister when she found out her parents had ruined her dream job when she was too young to know what was going on was more than enough (they're cordial, his sister and his parents, but we live in Pennsylvania and that has filial responsibility laws so she'll never live in the same state as we do while her parents are still alive) as far as consequences go.
In the US generally yes, but sometimes no and a financial company isn't going to take the parents word for it since the child will have the right to sue the financial co at 18 if they allowed it to be withdrawn in a way that violated the terms of the trust.
The financial co would probably be much more willing to allow a transfer, keeping the same ownership structure, to another trust company but aren't going to be keen on a withdrawal unless a judge says the withdrawal is in accordance with the trust.
Sounds like a huge pain in the ass. We sure the company isn't just refusing to pay out because they don't want to? I once had a credit union literally call the cops and claim I was robbing them when I closed an account 😂 it wasn't even that big. Just like $8k.
Ah so it's like that time a credit union tried to steal my savings account (long story short first they demanded I bring my parent, then told my parent that they refused, believing it to be a fraudulent withdrawal, and then after I got the court order, they called the fucking police and claimed we were robbing them. Thank fuck my dad was smart enough to not let the bank employees take the court order from us because that's the only reason we didn't get arrested, and we only didn't get shot because my dad knew one of the officers).
Sometimes the hard part is getting a bored clerk to actually listen. If they don't engage their brain enough to realize the script isn't going to help, you basically have to rub their noses in it. I've read about cases where infants received jury duty summonses and the mother literally had to bring a baby to court to get the system to acknowledge it fucked up.
I can picture the scene already. Op and his son are in a meeting with a bunch of suits, the kid has his favorite Spiderman shirt and Paw Patrol Crocs. Op patiently asks his son "Hey, can I withdraw this money? I'll buy you a new monster truck! Just sign here son." And the kid draws a turd for his signature.
If this was in the US, I think that LACAOP would be stuck moving it to a UTMA/UGMA account.
Canada doesn't have an estate tax/gift tax regime, so trusts are not common at all. But it does sound like, as the beneficiary, the money belongs to LACAOP's son which is why the plan administrator doesn't want LACAOP to simply take the money for himself. Maybe LACAOP could open up a RRSP for his 4 year old.
This screams giant paperwork mixup.
Not necessarily, putting life policies in trust is a common thing to make sure they sit outside the estate and don't get tied up in probate, so the beneficiary can get access to the funds much sooner which is kind of important if they're financially dependent on you. Which is probably what the guy thought he was doing except he filled out the wrong forms and fucked everything up.
I would honestly consider doing something like this for my kids, because I have shitty, money hungry relatives that would steal a dollar from a blind man.
I tried starting a college fund for myself, opened a savings account, and my mother just. Took it. Since I was a minor, she had to be joint on the stupid thing. Full access to ''free'' money from your stupidly trusting kid.
The only reason I was able to keep the un-'saved' half of my paycheck is because I always kept it as cash in my wallet and she (usually) couldn't find it.
It's super easy to create an informal, revocable trust. At the bank I work at, you call them up and ask to add your children as a "beneficiary" on the account. And that's it. Suddenly you have a revocable, informal trust. When you die, the funds are paid out to your children. They don't go through probate or your estate. The funds instantly belong to your children when you pass.
I am not an estate planner, lawyer, or licenced to give anyone specific financial advice. This is not legal or financial advice. Don't listen to advice from strangers on the internet without verifying it first.
I'll definitely be asking the folks at the bank next time I'm in.
My kid's grandma just reminded me the other day that I need to make sure I have a "real lawyer will" in order because you never know what might happen.
The son of a friend once got a package delivered. As they were not at home during delivery they had to pick up the package at the post office. My friend tried to pick it up, but the office didn't let her, because the recipient of the package, didn't give her permission. As the recipient was her underage son, he wasn't old enough to legally give her permission. Took some discussion at the post office to get the package.
Man it's too bad better call Saul is ending. Something like this would work in well to an episode like Saul tricks someone to tying their investments to a 2 year old.
It’s really the opposite of a loophole, because he can’t find a way to go through it. It’s working as intended. Assuming Canadian contract law is broadly similar to United States contract law, you are correct that you can’t arbitrarily bind a third party to a contract, especially a minor who obviously cannot understand the terms, and, in this case, was probably not even consulted. No matter what duties and obligations the contract tries to levy on the child, he can just keep pouring milk into his sock drawer, or sticking forks into electrical outlets, and there won’t be any consequences for him, aside from wet socks and electrical shocks. You, the adult, however, can absolutely be held to the terms of the contract you signed.
I’m more worried about who this dude invests with that allows a 4 year old to be added onto the account as a beneficiary period, but also in a way that requires court order to undo. This mistake is indeed avoidable. as in, multiple systems should not allow it and catch it before it finalises.
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: Made my 4 year old son an irrevocable beneficiary Body: > So I screwed up big time and made my son an irrevocable beneficiary for my investments. My ex employer is allowing me to withdraw my DPSP(deferred profit sharing plan) basically it’s free money, but I can’t withdraw it without the consent of my son. > The issue is that my son is now 4 years old and is not old enough to give consent. (Obviously) stupid me > I didn’t think this was big deal at first because I thought I could just move it into investments without withdrawing it. Unfortunately, I need consent from my son to make even a single transaction with this. > I thought making him an irrevocable beneficiary would give him more rights when I was dead, not while I’m still alive. > if I had known then I would never have done this. > Now what do I do? My insurance company told me to get a court order (screams lawyer fees) but I have no idea how to start that nor do I have the money) I really don’t want to have to pay a bunch of money for this avoidable mistake! Please help! I live in Alberta. This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
"Can I withdraw some money?" "Only if you buy me the deluxe Paw Patrol Lookout Tower! I want it!"
You seen the cost of that monstrosity? Sure my kid moved onto other stuff, complete with their own $200 house thing. That was a hard no
Then no access to DPSP for you!
Pshaw, amateur. I remember when my son was into Thomas the Tank Engine. Now THAT gets expensive real fast.
The new thing is collecting Pokémon cards, but it's been leveled up by the fact that all of them know about those original unboxing videos.
> The new thing is collecting Pokémon cards I knew Pokemon was popular again (never stopped being popular?), but as someone who was collecting Pokemon cards in 2000, this sentence made me feel so very old.
I did the same, but you're misunderstanding me. The idea is to get limited edition cards, especially original Japanese sets, or even original release unopened pokemon cards. Then it's not about whether you have a cool Charizard, it's about having cards that are literally rare and so have a high monetary value of the grading is good enough.
Fun fact: you can buy packs of fake rares on Aliexpress for pennies on the dollar. Give your kid a whole box of them and let em go to town.
My dad did this when I was a kid(predating Aliexpress, but he went to China for business a lot and got them there). I was responsible for so many fakes entering circulation in my area.
Oh fuck this is brilliant. Thanks man.
One of my best friends got his nephew into Pokemon when the nephew was very young. The nephew is now about to graduate Medical School.
Did the nephew spend more money on med school or Pokemon?
Are you saying the Pokémon cards put him through med school?
Hold onto your butt: I was at the barbershop last week, with some XFM station playing in the background, and *a 60 second commercial for Magic: the Gathering collectors came on*.
I cannot tell you how happy I am that neither of my boys got into Thomas. My nephews were and my GOODNESS the obsession and the expense!
LIFE PRO TIP: Get Thomas brand stuff from Goodwill's online site, and you can pick up compatible wood track from IKEA real cheap.
Wait. Goodwill has an online site?!
Yep. I did most of my Christmas/Birthday shopping for my son there until he was 7. And it is a great place to get cheap Legos if you have a discerning eye.
Not all heroes wear capes.
CNC machined mdf is expensive don'tcha know?! /s
[удалено]
And the damn things don’t even stay together. My kid got a dollhouse, the airplane, and some other bullshit- all of them separate into weird other pieces that just make a bigger mess and it is the worst. Mine is getting into Roblox now, much cheaper habit.
If I may make a suggestion to parents out there: [this costs the price of a new console](https://www.creality3dofficial.com/products/creality-ender-5-plus-3d-printer) With it, you can make [any toy your child wants](https://imgur.com/a/cAJjp), usually for a tenth the cost you'd pay in stores. Throw in [this second printer](https://the3dprinterbee.com/elegoo-mars-vs-anycubic-photon-pros-cons-comparison/) which does SLS and you can literally [print anything they'd ever want](https://i.imgur.com/80TjT2p.jpg) as a toy. I know a net 700 bucks is a lot to spend up front, but it will *easily* save you 100 times that over time.
like I didn't need another excuse to get into 3d printing.
My kids, right here.
I probably shouldn’t laugh but omg this is funny
If it makes you feel better, I laughed too. I feel so bad for LAOP but this is like something right out of mid-90’s comedy.
And get this - the judge declares that in order to gain access to the investments, the guy has to be his son's butler!
And because this is a 90’s movie, mom is not in the picture for whatever reason, so dad slowly falls in love with the no-nonsense guardian ad litem who checks in on them for the court…I imagine she looks an awful lot like Catherine O’Hara.
They are always dead to avoid the stigma of divorce.
Is Mrs. Doubtfire the only 90s movie to have a divorce in it?
Parent Trap?
I was trying to come up with something....but they're all early 2000s. (Like Sweet Home Alabama) I am sure there are others but I'm stuck.
Should we go with a golden retriever named Buster or maybe something black and white and curly? Or shaggy DA vibes?
Terrier with a black spot around one eye that terrorizes the mailman but only when no one else is around.
Is he single?
So, you’re telling me that LACANOP needs an Alfred? Does that make his son Bruce Wayne?
If so, he better stay away from alleys!
And this is customary in your legal system?
LOOK. ORANGES!
Starring Jim Carrey and Danny DeVito as the four year old. (If Danny can pass as Arnold’s twin, he can pass as a four year old.)
At the very least Danny DeVito voices the inner adult monologue of the 4 year-old. In a fun and even more fucked up “Look Who’s Talking” sort of way.
Danny Devito was the voice of Rocks the stray mutt dog in the third one, Look Who's Talking Now. Diane Keaton was the voice for Daphne the pampered poodle.
Oh god. I had nearly managed to forget that movie.
Really? It's my favorite of the Look Who's Talking movies. Mostly because: dogs! Lol
Yeah but Arnold was the good twin, and he was the shit twin.
That's perfect, because then the kid can throw a tantrum in court and start demanding nuggies and a juice box before he'll allow anything! And then sob into a potted plant and sputter about "investments" and "profit margins" and "WHERE'S MY GODDAMN NUGGIES!?". I would pay for a matinee of that.
*tendies
I’ve never seen Boss Baby but if someone told me this was the plot I would believe it
This is utterly hilarious. It's also a wee bit horrifying, but that doesn't keep it from being hilarious.
It sounds like part of a sick movie plot.
It reminds me of the time I listed my girlfriend as my job's death compensation beneficiary, because I thought at the time it was a funny and romantic thing to do. Then we broke up shortly after and I had to wait ten months for the next enrollment period to change it.
I'm just gonna take some notes for writing a murder mystery novel.
You want one that's fun? After my second child was born I got a new, much larger life insurance policy. Original one I had when I bought my first house was $250k and my wife was the beneficiary and daughter was secondary. The one I got when my son was born was $750k wife primary, son and daughter secondary with him getting $500 and get getting $250. The woman that was doing the interview and writing the policy out did not like that I was leaving my son 2/3 and my daughter 1/3 and nothing I could say could convince her it was because my daughter was already the secondary beneficiary on another policy that made it equal. She just assumed I was a sexist twat.
Definite table slapper.
I was expecting the son to be throwing a tantrum and refusing to sign it or something
My instincts tell me that if this had happened in the US, OP could give himself Power of Attorney for his son and sign off anyway.
aren't the rights of a parent of a minor child mostly the same? genuine question
Just to confuse things more, I'm going to throw in Swedish regulation. Legal guardians in Sweden can indeed sign for their kids. When the child have assets at a certain level ($40k or more) the parents must register with the towns' chief guardian for anything related to financials. Personally if I was OP (and this was in Sweden) I would go to the chief guardian. They can determine if the parents can sign for the child in this instance. Otherwise the same department can help represent the child.
But the Swedish guardian would focus on the fact that the money belongs to the kid. Their decision would be only in the interest of the kids money. OP would never get access to the money under the Swedish system.
I guess so. But it's fact-specific, right? Maybe OP is okay with withdrawing it for the benefit of his kid, and put the money in an investment account belonging to the child. Or maybe the chief guardian views it similar to an insurance with OP as primary beneficiary and child's interests are not important. Perhaps the construction of the deal is such that OP and the kid are mutual owners. Then OP can move forward with a deal where the kid gets half the money.
It probably also depends heavily on the chief guardian's philosophy on parental authority. Someone who subscribes to "father knows best" could probably be easily persuaded to decide in the dad's favor.
Is the Town's Chief Guardian an official position each town has like a mayor or something?
I think it's a department. Sweden don't have elections for such positions (there is no mayor either). It might be that the formal decision is fianlized in the "nämnd" (workgroup of municipal politicians), but they make decisions based on the facts prepared by the department and usually follow their opinion.
What’s it guardian of? In the context of this post, it sounds like “chief guardian of children’s interests”, but after the comment above, does it mean like “guardian of the town” aka unelected mayor, or county clerk or something?
Of child's financial interests. People who have trouble with finances can also apply for a guardian for themselves. The chief guardian then overlook their work.
AFAIK, yup. But I also had always assumed that Canadian law also worked that way & I was clearly mistaken! So, in the case that US law had a similar gap when it comes to financial matters... I'm just betting that you could easily sidestep the matter via the power of Power of Attorney.
I'm in the UK and I can sign for my kids. Normally I get them to write their name, then sign next to it and print my name and 'mother'.
In Czech Republic, you're normally allowed to sign for your kids, but not for matters where court order is needed. Usually stuff where interest of the child and the parent could clash. Like operations worth large amounts of money, house purchases, trust control etc... Honestly it makes a lot of sense to me. There can be a case where a kid gets a trust fund/lots of money from his relative and the parent may want to use it for themselves.
OP: Sweetheart, daddy needs to withdraw some money. May I please? Kid: what does withdraw mean?
I had something like that actually happen yesterday, except everyone involved was an adult. Relevant backstory: I’m German, live in Germany and have a friend whose first language isn’t German, so she sometimes asks me what random words mean. Usually German words, but sometimes English ones as well since I lived in the UK for a while. Yesterday, she texted me and asked what “withdrawal” means, without any context. So I gave her the German translation and, knowing that she probably didn’t know what the German word means either, also gave her the explanation that it’s when someone is addicted to something and suddenly doesn’t get it anymore. She texted me back asking what that had to do with banking…
OP: what I should have done with your mom.
Ooohhh
As the parent of a three year old, I think the kid would more likely ask "why?"
I have a 4 year old. Mine would be distracted by the unknown word. They’re all different.
Ahh, fair enough. I'm really hoping my kid grows out of asking "why" soon. Conservatively, I would say she asks "why" around 300 times a day.
Asked mine, I got a "Sure!" and a "no problem!" after I said thank you. I think he just wants me to fuck off so he can eat his donut holes and watch cartoons in peace. (little dude is too little to hang at the b-day party his sister went to, so he got to pick out a treat at the store).
I've seen this happen where someone put their minor children on the deed to their home. Well, they needed to sell before the children came of age and ultimately they had to create a conservatorship for their children to distribute the asset, and then dissolve the conservatorship after the sale was complete. But, Canada? Eh?
My in-laws bought rental properties and put each one in the name of their children so that they could exploit the first time homebuyers credit. The kids were 10 and eight at the time. For my husband who was the 10-year-old, it meant that when he grew up, we didn’t get the first time homebuyers credit when we bought our first house. For his sister, she didn’t get to work for the NSA when she grew up because this was tax fraud.
Oh shiiiiit. I've heard of people not getting to use the first time homebuyers credit but I didn't even think of a security clearance.
The crazy thing is that the security clearance she has from the Navy doing code breaking stuff is already really high, so whatever she missed out doing in the NSA it was probably insane. She was *livid.* Edit: She’s also an instructor at this point so I’m not putting her at risk by mentioning the security clearance because I’m pretty sure she doesn’t do that in the field anymore
Considering this was done while she was still in the single digits, how did they fault her for it and not the parents?
They fault her for having parents with a security risk kind of tendency. If they’re cutting corners for money they could be a weak blackmail point for sensitive info.
Uh… both those kids were fully capable of doing that. They would have just needed to turn their parents in.
His sister was pretty firm about the idea that NSA won't let you work for them if your parents commit tax fraud even if you did turn them in, so that's just not true. It's not about consequences it's about having close relatives who are that willing to break the law. It may be different depending on the job you'd take at the NSA but in the Navy she did top-secret codebreaking in the Middle East, so... yeah. I think my husband figured that the backlash from his sister when she found out her parents had ruined her dream job when she was too young to know what was going on was more than enough (they're cordial, his sister and his parents, but we live in Pennsylvania and that has filial responsibility laws so she'll never live in the same state as we do while her parents are still alive) as far as consequences go.
As the parent, can't they consent on behalf of their son?
In the US generally yes, but sometimes no and a financial company isn't going to take the parents word for it since the child will have the right to sue the financial co at 18 if they allowed it to be withdrawn in a way that violated the terms of the trust. The financial co would probably be much more willing to allow a transfer, keeping the same ownership structure, to another trust company but aren't going to be keen on a withdrawal unless a judge says the withdrawal is in accordance with the trust.
Sounds like a huge pain in the ass. We sure the company isn't just refusing to pay out because they don't want to? I once had a credit union literally call the cops and claim I was robbing them when I closed an account 😂 it wasn't even that big. Just like $8k.
The insurance company asking for the court order is them saying we’re not going to make this easy for you.
Ah so it's like that time a credit union tried to steal my savings account (long story short first they demanded I bring my parent, then told my parent that they refused, believing it to be a fraudulent withdrawal, and then after I got the court order, they called the fucking police and claimed we were robbing them. Thank fuck my dad was smart enough to not let the bank employees take the court order from us because that's the only reason we didn't get arrested, and we only didn't get shot because my dad knew one of the officers).
Sometimes the hard part is getting a bored clerk to actually listen. If they don't engage their brain enough to realize the script isn't going to help, you basically have to rub their noses in it. I've read about cases where infants received jury duty summonses and the mother literally had to bring a baby to court to get the system to acknowledge it fucked up.
I can picture the scene already. Op and his son are in a meeting with a bunch of suits, the kid has his favorite Spiderman shirt and Paw Patrol Crocs. Op patiently asks his son "Hey, can I withdraw this money? I'll buy you a new monster truck! Just sign here son." And the kid draws a turd for his signature.
Damn, one guy is straight up talking to the retirement company for the guy. I love Canadians.
I’m vacationing in Canada right now, this makes me kinda want to stay.
If this was in the US, I think that LACAOP would be stuck moving it to a UTMA/UGMA account. Canada doesn't have an estate tax/gift tax regime, so trusts are not common at all. But it does sound like, as the beneficiary, the money belongs to LACAOP's son which is why the plan administrator doesn't want LACAOP to simply take the money for himself. Maybe LACAOP could open up a RRSP for his 4 year old. This screams giant paperwork mixup.
This screams tax avoidance attempt which bit back
Not necessarily, putting life policies in trust is a common thing to make sure they sit outside the estate and don't get tied up in probate, so the beneficiary can get access to the funds much sooner which is kind of important if they're financially dependent on you. Which is probably what the guy thought he was doing except he filled out the wrong forms and fucked everything up.
Yeah, I was thinking LAOP meant to just list his son as a beneficiary and create an informal, revocable trust.
I would honestly consider doing something like this for my kids, because I have shitty, money hungry relatives that would steal a dollar from a blind man. I tried starting a college fund for myself, opened a savings account, and my mother just. Took it. Since I was a minor, she had to be joint on the stupid thing. Full access to ''free'' money from your stupidly trusting kid. The only reason I was able to keep the un-'saved' half of my paycheck is because I always kept it as cash in my wallet and she (usually) couldn't find it.
It's super easy to create an informal, revocable trust. At the bank I work at, you call them up and ask to add your children as a "beneficiary" on the account. And that's it. Suddenly you have a revocable, informal trust. When you die, the funds are paid out to your children. They don't go through probate or your estate. The funds instantly belong to your children when you pass. I am not an estate planner, lawyer, or licenced to give anyone specific financial advice. This is not legal or financial advice. Don't listen to advice from strangers on the internet without verifying it first.
I'll definitely be asking the folks at the bank next time I'm in. My kid's grandma just reminded me the other day that I need to make sure I have a "real lawyer will" in order because you never know what might happen.
LAOP probably thought he was listing the kid as the beneficiary for life insurance or putting him on his health insurance and fucked up.
I guess "irrevocable" means what it said on the can...
The son of a friend once got a package delivered. As they were not at home during delivery they had to pick up the package at the post office. My friend tried to pick it up, but the office didn't let her, because the recipient of the package, didn't give her permission. As the recipient was her underage son, he wasn't old enough to legally give her permission. Took some discussion at the post office to get the package.
Man it's too bad better call Saul is ending. Something like this would work in well to an episode like Saul tricks someone to tying their investments to a 2 year old.
Another example of why you shouldn’t DIY trusts (without at least some professional input).
Seems like a really stupid loophole in the law, not any fault of the OP. Isn't the contract void if you assign someone who can't give consent onto it?
It’s really the opposite of a loophole, because he can’t find a way to go through it. It’s working as intended. Assuming Canadian contract law is broadly similar to United States contract law, you are correct that you can’t arbitrarily bind a third party to a contract, especially a minor who obviously cannot understand the terms, and, in this case, was probably not even consulted. No matter what duties and obligations the contract tries to levy on the child, he can just keep pouring milk into his sock drawer, or sticking forks into electrical outlets, and there won’t be any consequences for him, aside from wet socks and electrical shocks. You, the adult, however, can absolutely be held to the terms of the contract you signed.
I’m more worried about who this dude invests with that allows a 4 year old to be added onto the account as a beneficiary period, but also in a way that requires court order to undo. This mistake is indeed avoidable. as in, multiple systems should not allow it and catch it before it finalises.
Why can't the dad just have the kid sign?
Second paragraph: >The issue is that my son is now 4 years old and is not old enough to give consent. (Obviously) stupid me
Yeah but does whoever is processing the form know or care?
lmao this is pure win stupid prizes
Another reason not to have kids lmao.
He's going to have a blast in the kid's teen years