Who would you give guardianship to?

December 29, 2009 8:29 AM

Guardianship of minor child. Who would you list?

Doing our wills. Who would you list as guardian? Our child is a year old. Here are the profiles of the two options, please forgive me for simplifying their lives in such a way:

Mother's sister:
Early 30s, in a committed lesbian relationship of 2 years (girlfriend is 35ish), owns small 2 bedroom home in a large liberal city. 2 cats, 1 dog.
Pros: Shares social values with child's mother and father. Would put forth tremendous effort to be a good parent (as would her partner, who works with children professionally).
Cons: Does not value education (our attitude: spend as much as possible for good education, provide enriching experiences whenever possible), health (our attitude: exercise and eating well are priorities), global view (our attitude: travel a lot) and political awareness (our attitude: news junkies, politically active) that mother and father do, but isn't on the opposite side of the spectrum - just doesn't value these things as highly as well do.
Somewhat financial irresponsible (not losing her home, but not saving either and has debt). And financially they're not moving up in the world either. She has a steady middle management job. Will probably move up a little in her career, to the best of my knowledge. Her significant other works in the non-profit world and won't likely ever make a lot of money.
They love their adult life. They go out a lot, buy "toys" and have admitted that although they want kids, that'll be hard for them to give up.

Father's sister:
Early 30s. Married to a ~45 year old man from a different culture (this matters). 2 kids: 4 years old and infant. Owns home in huge metropolitan city. Works at an intense job with 12 hour days. Husband does not work. Uses combination of nanny and pre-school for childcare.
Pros: Very financially stable. Smart about saving and limited debt. Also has similar values to us in terms of educational goals, political awareness. She's great overall.
Cons: We don't like husband. He doesn't speak English, which is a barrier for us (and our child). He doesn't work, isn't involved with the children and is just all around bad news. Also her work schedule is tough with 2 kids, much less 3. I wouldn't want to only see my kids for an hour or so at the ends of the day and on weekends, personally and I don't know how she does it.

So, it comes down to a question of financial stability, really. Is jerky husband's jerkiness tolerable considering their financial stability and the fact that they already have kids (I think that going from 2 to 3 would be easier than going from 0 to 1)?

Also, I know that really, the chance of us both perishing in a freak accident is slim, but I think that this would make me feel better.

posted by anonymous to Human Relations (29 answers total)

Cons: We don't like husband.

Then why would you even consider this as an option?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:30 AM on December 29, 2009 [10 favorites]

You have asked them about this and confirmed that they would be willing to take on this huge responsibility, correct? Beyond that, Is jerky husband's jerkiness tolerable considering their financial stability? No.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:33 AM on December 29, 2009 [3 favorites]

I would rather have my child life with the mellow-sounding sister than with the high stress sister/ bad news brother-in-law. It's not even a close decision. Who would you rather live with?
posted by shrabster at 8:34 AM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Maybe you should look to friends to serve as guardian to your child? It doesn't seem like your relatives share your priorities (mom's side) or values (dad's side). It's a big thing to ask, but if you have a lifelong friend who's already acting like "Auntie Annie" or "Uncle Kurt", then maybe that's who you choose.
posted by parilous at 8:36 AM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

I would pick good people who have time for my child over finances any day. You don't need money to be a happy and well adjusted adult. You do need love and attention.
posted by sunshinesky at 8:37 AM on December 29, 2009 [8 favorites]

You're approaching this the wrong way. You have a perfect candidate in Sister #1, except for the financial stability issue that is, for whatever reason, very important to you. Your goal here is not just to designate someone to raise your child, but to provide for that child in the event of your death. This is what life insurance is for. As long as there's enough money for this sister to feed, clothe, house and educate your child, the financial issue is resolved.

Even without the very very healthy life insurance policy I assume you both carry, Sister #2 is a poor candidate. You do not place your child in a family where you do not like one of the parents, or in a situation where a traumatised child cannot communicate with one of his or her brand new primary care takers. That is a terrible, terrible idea. (Many things are more important than money; that would be one of them.)

Were you and your spouse to suddenly die, Sister #1's life would suddenly and dramatically change, as would the sister herself due to her new role. Those secondary values you're worrying about very well might evolve to be more in line with yours, and it also sounds to me (for whatever reasons) that Sister #1 might be a little more concious of (and more able to) raise your child with a heavy consideration for your values on top of her own. This is less likely with Sister #2, which sounds like a crummy set-up for your kid anyway.
posted by DarlingBri at 8:44 AM on December 29, 2009 [26 favorites]

Shares social values with child's mother and father. Would put forth tremendous effort to be a good parent (as would her partner, who works with children professionally).
This would make it for me hands down. You make sure his education is paid thru college and let this two ladies take care of the rest. As far as they have their basic needs covered a great financial situation doesn't mean a lot for kids, they need to be loved and sure that people raising them really want to do it.
Father's sister won't even have the time to raise your child.

My respect for taking this matter seriously, I hope you guys live long enough to see your great grandchildren.
posted by 3dd at 8:45 AM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

I hope you've asked both of them if they would even be interested in being the guardian of your child, and brace yourself, perhaps they won't be interested.

Have you thought about either of your parents?
posted by banannafish at 8:47 AM on December 29, 2009

Have you spoken with both couples to gauge how they would feel about becoming your child's guardians in the event that both of your die? If you have not had such a conversation with each couple, you need to because you do not want to appoint a guardian for your child who would not be fully committed to the care and raising of your child. You do not want to put your child in a home where the child will be viewed or possibly treated as a burden. You want to put your child in a home where the child will be loved and incorporated as a direct member of the family.

There's a BIG difference between "this is our child" and "this is our ward". In your conversations, you may even want to explore the possibility of adoption and not just legal guardianship. If you all agree that adoption is desired, then what you would be giving your child is permanency. Your child would know that even though Mom and Dad are gone, they arranged things so he/she would have a permanent home with people who wanted this as well. Such an arrangement doesn't replace Mom and Dad. It just affords your child more security and stability in family structure and fitting into it.

So, before you make a decision, speak with both couples. Explain that you're exploring your options and want to know their thoughts on the topic. Ask, could you love our child as if she were your own? Are you willing to commit to raising her and being a parent to her for live if something should happen. After you hear from both couples, you may find that the choice is obvious and doesn't rest on the finances.

Regarding the finances, don't let that be your primary criteria. Work to provide for your child in the event of your death. For example, stipulate that the house be sold and the earnings from the sale go in a trust to provide for the care and education of your child. Make sure your child is your beneficiary on life insurance and other financial resources you have.

Guardianship (or adoption) of a relative's orphaned child involves more your comfort level with the potential guardian and their financial resources. It involves their willingness to commit to the child.
posted by onhazier at 8:48 AM on December 29, 2009

Mother's sister. YOU provide the financial stability through life insurance and a properly planned trust. The other qualities are more important than money anyway.
posted by maxg94 at 8:49 AM on December 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

So, it comes down to a question of financial stability, really.

Purely my opinion: financial stability is somewhat less important than the quality of the life your child will lead. Also, they may surprise you. Financial stability often becomes a much higher priority for new parents once the depth of their newfound responsibilities hits. It's much harder to justify buying that iPod Touch when your kid needs clothing and there isn't enough money for both.

If it were me, I'd vote for the option that made sure they would grow up loved and supported with parents that were actively interested in being involved in their lives. Oh, and for the record parents can work 50 hours a week and still be involved. But if the "jerky husband" already has two kids and isn't involved now, that's not a situation that's likely to improve with the addition of a third child. Speaking as a father who works long hours and only sees his children for a brief period each morning and on weekends, you set a high value on (and make the most of,) the time you have with them.

Is jerky husband's jerkiness tolerable considering their financial stability and the fact that they already have kids (I think that going from 2 to 3 would be easier than going from 0 to 1)?

Easier, yes. But is his jerkiness tolerable? No. Not to me, at least. YMMV.
posted by zarq at 8:50 AM on December 29, 2009

I wouldn't worry too much about mom's sis admitting that it would be hard to give up toys to choose to have kids. If something happened to you and your partner, would making some sacrifices in order to take care of your kid be a no-brainer for her and her wife? From your characterization, it sounds like it's the more stable home.

Is jerky husband's jerkiness tolerable considering their financial stability and the fact that they already have kids (I think that going from 2 to 3 would be easier than going from 0 to 1)?

That old saying about money not buying happiness, you know? Besides, the parent in this scenario that you trust is the one making all the money and working all the long hours. The parent that's home is the one who apparently doesn't believe in parenting. I can't imagine how this is a better scenario.

Maybe it would make you feel better to write some letters to be included in your papers, warmly affirming that dad's sis is an important member of your kid's family?
posted by desuetude at 8:52 AM on December 29, 2009

Who do you trust? Of those, who is financially able to provide for a child? Of those, who wants the job?
posted by davejay at 9:06 AM on December 29, 2009

Sorry, wrong order. Who do you trust? Of those, who wants the job? Of those, who is financially available to provide for a child?

and yeah, I kind of took "who do your kids like" as a given
posted by davejay at 9:08 AM on December 29, 2009

Mother's sister sounds like the best bet. It sounds like father's sister is a rat racer and you don't like the husband, which should be a no-brainer. It sounds like Mother's Sister is going to have a roof over her head, even though she is not as financially responsible as you'd like her to be. Financial stability is important but not as much as being there.

Does not value education (our attitude: spend as much as possible for good education, provide enriching experiences whenever possible)

Maybe she values education but not in the same way. Just because a person throws a lot of money on fancy schools and "experiences" doesn't mean a kid is going to be curious and interested in life-long learning.

Above all else I would choose the more loving and less self-absorbed person. Who is more loving, emotionally stable, and mature? Mature, as in, do they know how to be an adult around children? Never mind a bit of debt. High powered jobs mean nothing to a child. If anything, they are a detriment. Who is going to be emotionally and physically available? Who is more patient and kind? Who will nurture the child's interests and create a loving and stable environment?
posted by Fairchild at 9:11 AM on December 29, 2009

Good people with no money are way better than bad people with lots of money. I say this from lots of experience. The father's sister shouldn't even be on the table.
posted by dunkadunc at 9:17 AM on December 29, 2009

A more global way to come at this, speaking from the experience of determining guardianship for our child in our wills:

Ultimately, we realized, when pro-ing and con-ing one potential situation over another that we were trying to find some kind of emotional and material "ideal" for our child in the event of our deaths or child-rearing incapability. But, in the end, if our child really had to be placed with other people because his mom and dad had died, there is no ideal. There is no way to replace a mother and father; he would have questions and different kinds of struggles and grief his whole life. Our loss would be, in many ways, a defining characteristic of his life.

So we went with love and fun and with someone who loved us and would fill his life with love and stories about us. People who were willing to answer his questions and treat him gently. In a life that finds one as an orphan, he was never going to have the same life we envisioned for him, because we wouldn't be there to guide him. So we wanted to make sure he would have the best chance at a loving homelife so that he could enter the world happy, with a touchstone of people who valued his happiness and would always be there to keep answering his questions.

Where will your child be first, cared for in his grief, a grief that could be difficult and complex, and then, as your child heals, given consistent love and answers? Where will he find a new family, not just a new home?

This is hard, I know, and we found it to be an emotional process. It ended up being emotional for our child's potential guardians as well, and so now, because we opened up our feelings to them about our process, they have become a significant part of our child's life--loving him and letting him know it as well as asking us questions about our choices as we make them. So, whomever you choose, I would involve them in your thinking so that they can enjoy your child in a meaningful way now, and for all times. It's true this means you're more likely to be on the same page in the unlikely event they would need to be a family for your little one, but it also provides for your child relationships with trusting and loving adults other than parents--which is always a good idea, especially as your child gets older. It makes it a more secure of a decision than just naming someone on a legal piece of paper. Someone who already loves your child in an daily sort of way, will stand by your child and fight on his/her behalf, if it ever comes to that.

Go with love! Is my corny, but I hope helpful point.
posted by rumposinc at 9:17 AM on December 29, 2009 [8 favorites]

We are trying to make a similar decision, and I was advised that our life insurance payout should be set up in a trust that is controlled by a different person, not the guardians. Like yours, our potential guardians are not the best at making financial decisions, so the person or entity controlling the trust could dole out money for our kid's care as well as hold some for college, but the guardians wouldn't be able to touch it otherwise. I haven't looked into this yet, but I think it's a good idea.
posted by Knowyournuts at 9:27 AM on December 29, 2009 [3 favorites]

Would YOU want to live with creepy husband? Have him be, essentially, your dad? Yeah, your kids probably don't want to live with him either.

I have some jerky relatives that were obviously the "perfect" choice for my parents to stick me with if they died (lived in the same town as me, their kids were grown up, as opposed to the other relatives who had three small children and lived farther away), and I was terrified of what would happen if I had to live with Those People. Don't do that to your kids.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:41 AM on December 29, 2009

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but it's very common to have your financial guardian be different than your legal guardian for exactly the reasons you describe.

If you don't mind the cost (and it is SO often worth it!) you can hire a lawyer or some other trustee to steward the money from the life insurance policy.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:43 AM on December 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

Buy life insurance. Lots of it. Talk with your estate planner about ways to ensure that your money can provide for your child in the ways that are important to you. Then, ask mom's sister and her partner if they would be willing to be your child's guardians.

If they say no, I'd start looking at friends. Dad's sister's family is clearly not a place you want your child raised.
posted by decathecting at 10:13 AM on December 29, 2009

I picked my husband's parents, even though they are in their early sixties. The reason why? They are the adults outside of our family that spend the most time with our daughter and our daughter loves them unconditionally. Pick the adults that will have the most established relationship with your child growing up. That way, it will be less of a leap for your child to trust them after your death. By this metric, sister #1 will beat sister #2 but there may be other adults that are more suitable, consider everybody around you for a good fit for your child.
posted by crazycanuck at 10:24 AM on December 29, 2009

Did your values re: education, health and money adjust as you came to terms with being a parent? I would imagine the same thing would happen to mother's sister, or really anyone who faced becoming a parent for the first time.
posted by hermitosis at 10:51 AM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Absolutely, positively mother's sister. "Would put forth tremendous effort to be a good parent" sealed the deal for me. Father's sister sounds like she has no time to raise a child, and the whole sketchy husband deal sounds like a bad situation, one that you wouldn't want your child to be a part of.
posted by emd3737 at 11:15 AM on December 29, 2009

Get good life insurance. Arrange it in such a way that kid's education is taken care of as part of life insurance / financial payout and talk to sister #1. Tell her, hey, here is what we value, can you be ok with reinforcing those values.

My brother and his wife put some strictures on me vis a vis the inheriting on their kids in the event of both their deaths. They weren't unreasonable and I respect their desire to have some reasonable requests in the face of the unthinkable.

Why in the world would you ever consider sending your child to live in the home of and have as their primary care giver someone you don't like.
posted by memi at 1:07 PM on December 29, 2009

uh, the inheriting *OF* their kids.
posted by memi at 1:08 PM on December 29, 2009

I wouldn't let someone I don't like be the guardian of my kids. Go with the mother's sister.

By the way: some people think that you shouldn't ask people if they'd like to be the guardian of your children, but just go ahead and name them in your will. What if you ask the mother's sister to be the guardian, then the father's sister gets divorced, the jerky dad is out of the picture, and you tell the mother's sister that you decided to switch guardians? That's the sort of conversation that can destroy some families.
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:56 PM on December 29, 2009

Go on values, and whoever would be most loving if anything happened to you. You probably have insurance, assets, a house, etc. Set it up so that any assets would go into a trust for your child(ren) and name father's sister as a trustee. Talk to father's sister, and tell her you want to be sure that if anything happened, she'd watch out for your child and his/her finances. Your child would also get Social Security benefits large enough to cover living expenses, leaving other assets for education.
posted by theora55 at 3:21 PM on December 29, 2009

Mother's sister doesn't actually sound financially instable - she pays her bills right? She just doesn't make the same long-term decisions because she doesn't have to - she has currently got no dependents!!!!! I'm in her situation and my goal is to die with the biggest overdraft I can get.......

So go and make sure you provide for your child financially and go with the person you'd be most comfortable trusting with your child's emotional well being. As somebody else said losing both parents would be the single one defining event in your child's childhood and you need to pick somebody who will love and support the child and be there for it even after it has grown up. My mother died when I was 14 and whilst I still had my father he was really out of his depth in terms of supporting and guiding me and therefore the single most important support I had was my auntie and her husband. And they still are to this day.
posted by koahiatamadl at 9:15 AM on December 30, 2009