Planning for a Disabled Child

Estate pre-planning should be an important part of everyone’s financial regimen, but this process becomes even more important when you have a child with disabilities.

A lot of factors go into creating a uniquely designed plan, depending on their unique personal challenges and whether they are a minor or adult. The goal is to help your special-needs child continue to lead an enriching, happy life even in your absence.

A Lifetime of Care

The larger goal of special-needs planning is to preserve public aid while also supplementing your child’s care. There are additional benefits to taking care of this right away: If plans are put in place while you’re still alive, the estate avoids probate. Others interested parties, like their grandparents, can contribute to a trust. Named co-trustees can also get hands-on experience in helping with childcare and administering the guardianship. Depending on the child’s capability, this money-management program may be critically important since it will be the only future path to protecting eligibility for benefits. It will provide additional funds for a broader scope of care and create a financial resource should benefits become restricted or end all together.

Special-Needs Trust

Children are at particular risk if they are unable to live independently after the death of a parent of guardian. A special-needs trust can ensure that they are provided with needed resources and care over the course of their lifetime. Parents or guardians should name the trust as a beneficiary in their will, according to the American Bar Association, instead of the child. Many public-aid options are designed to be resource dependent, meaning recipients aren’t eligible if they have access to a certain amount of money. These trusts allow for an inheritance without endangering aid provided by Medicaid, SSI or other government programs because assets held in trust are not directly available to the child. Funds from life-insurance policies, IRAs and retirement plans can also be directed to the trust, and the child still has access to other programs.

Designating a Caretaker

Beyond the obvious financial considerations, parents and guardians must select a designated caretaker to look after their special-needs child — or to manage their care, if the child is in an assisted-living environment. Work with an attorney who specializes in estate planning in order to create both a trust and this succession plan, since states have differing regulations and laws regarding who may serve as a legal guardian.p

Your Will/continued from page 2

Changes in Financial Situation

There may come a time where you decide to increase or decrease the inheritance you are leaving behind for loved ones.

For instance, if you receive a large sum of money, it’s possible to alter your will to add a new beneficiary or make an increase towards those currently on your list.

On the other hand, if you experience financial misfortune, it’s necessary to adjust the document to pay out less and ensure your estate’s obligations can still be met.

Changes in Tax Laws

It can be hard to stay up-to-date on constantly changing tax laws, but it’s necessary to keep your final document in good legal standing. Especially if your will takes actions to address estate tax issues, it’s a good idea to receive periodic reviews by an attorney.

Ask for Advice

Don’t be afraid to ask your legal expert for advice on other moments that may benefit your last will and testament. Remember, this document is incredibly important to keep accurate as it articulates your vision and solidifies your legacy.p

Three Years of Title 42 continued from page 1

Mexico without due process. Since March 2020, it has become increasingly clear that the CDC was pressured into issuing the so-called public health order by an administration that was dead set on excluding asylum seekers by whatever means necessary.

The reasons given to support Title 42 buckled under any scrutiny. The government argued it did not have the infrastructure to safely process asylum seekers in congregate settings, like ports of entry or Border Patrol facilities. The stated concern about the global pandemic stood in stark contrast to the many CBP and Border Patrol officials who refused to use personal protective equipment at work and, as the pandemic wore on, resisted vaccination.

All the while, little effort was made to improve the infrastructure at ports to ensure the U.S. government was able to uphold its legal obligation to offer protection to those fleeing persecution. More than that, the actual logistics of implementing Title 42 confounded its stated purpose. While the policy permitted rapid expulsion without due process, this was easier said than done.

In effect, this meant that some migrants – namely those who not immediately expelled to Mexico – ended up detained in congregate settings for significant periods of time, sometimes in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, before expelled. In these instances, the government expelled migrants despite the fact their Covid status was known to be negative. Similarly, Border Patrol often expelled pregnant women and other people in medical distress from their hospital beds, despite objective knowledge that there was no public health threat.

Since the policy’s inception, logistical obstacles to implementing Title 42 have meant that access to asylum at the U.S. southern border has been arbitrary. Expulsion under Title 42 has been largely dictated by nationality and dumb luck. Many asylum seekers avoided expulsion because Mexico would not take them, or their home country refused to receive expulsion flights. Others were saved because of numerical limitations on flights, lice, or random acts of compassion or fatigue.

The same randomness has applied to Title 42 exemptions. Originally, NGOs led the effort to help migrants gain access to asylum at ports through humanitarian exceptions. Though problematic from the start, this effort has now been displaced by CBP One, a smart phone application that permits migrants to directly request exemptions to Title 42. Unfortunately, the app is riddled with issues, including technological glitches disproportionately impacting brown and Black migrants. The app is all but inaccessible to a broad swatch of migrants who do not possess the language skills, literacy, or technology to use it. At a more fundamental level, many migrants just can’t get an appointment.

This randomness is a real problem. Even if we believe that the initial purpose of Title 42 was not to exclude asylum seekers, it is clearly the goal now. The policy’s supporters believe that it is the last defense against border chaos. However, the randomness of the policy itself has fed into the chaos we are trying to avoid. Title 42 has pushed asylum seekers into irregular migratory paths and created a burgeoning industry for organized crime groups who have preyed on desperate asylum seekers.

Despite the evidence that Title 42 is inhumane and has not reduced border encounters, support for the policy remains steadfast. In ongoing litigation, state governments have fought for Title 42 to stay in place as a migration control mechanism, divorced from the policy’s— albeit flimsy—initial health-based justifications. Even the Biden administration has waffled on Title 42, alternately fighting to end the policy, defending its use in court, and expanding its use.

So where does this leave us now? We finally may have a chance to move forward. The Biden administration has announced that the Covid-19 public health emergency will end on May 11, 2023, and, with it, Title 42 is also set expire. As Title 42 sunsets, the White House has a unique opportunity to learn from the past and return to its campaign promises. Instead, the administration seems poised to resurrect failed and inhumane policies like the proposed asylum transit ban and family detention.

We hope that short-sighted political pressures to institute draconian border policies do not overshadow the calls from advocates to do the right thing. Border “solutions” that myopically focus on excluding migrants miss the point. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and have legal and constitutional commitments to offer migrants a fair process to seek protection. Three years after the start of Title 42, it is time to finally return to our promise to restore access to asylum.l