THE LEGACY OF EUNICE SHRIVER KENNEDY
To paraphrase the opening line of a recent Orange County Register editorial of earlier this week, it is ironic that one of the least famous of America’s Kennedy clan, who was not an icon of the American political scene, will likely be the one to leave the longest lasting contribution to our society. Eunice Kennedy Shriver, sister of President John F. Kennedy, wife of Sargent Shriver, (who was the first head of the Peace Corp) and mother of California’s First Lady, former NBC newswoman, Maria Shriver, founded the Special Olympics in 1968. Each year the Special Olympics offers thousands of participants in 180 countries the opportunity to push themselves and their abilities beyond their or their families’ wildest dreams.
Mrs. Shriver was inspired both because of her personal experience with her mentally challenged sister, Rosemary Kennedy, and with that of a young boy who had been denied admittance into a summer camp near the Kennedy farm in Maryland due to his disabilities.
Coincidentally, it was also just announced earlier this month that the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Foundation had issued a $3 million grant to CHOC (Children’s Hospital of Orange County) for research. Clearly, this woman has left a legacy that has and will continue to affect millions of lives, not just that of one generation.
While not all of us have the financial wherewithal to make as deep an impact as did Mrs. Shriver, we all can take steps to leave a lasting imprint on our world. Each one of us has a cause about which we are passionate. It might be children, animals, the planet, illness, social concerns, religion, or even political ideologies. Whatever the passion, we have an opportunity to make a difference. Many of us, especially these days, cannot contribute large amounts of cash to the organizations of our choice, but we all can ensure that when we pass, we have left something, even if only a percentage, of our worldly treasure to those organizations that can continue to carry the banner for us.
One of the easiest and most cost effective ways to do this is to designate a charity or charities as the beneficiary of our retirement plans. In the case of an IRA, which has yet to be income taxed, by designating a qualified charity as the beneficiary of the plan, because the charity is not subject to income tax, the full amount of the IRA can be used to benefit the organization. Because at death, the donor is given a 100% charitable deduction for every donation to a public charity, the designation of a charity for an IRA has a double tax benefit: it reduces the size of the donor’s estate for estate tax purposes and it eliminates the capital gains income tax related to the IRA. Brilliant.
If one wants greater control, for example, one wishes to designate how the donated proceeds will be used, then another excellent way to benefit a charity at death is to include the bequest within one’s revocable trust (or will, if there is no trust). The designation should specify whether the bequest is a general gift that may be used for the charity’s general, charitable purposes, or if the bequest is restricted. Examples of a restricted bequest would be a bequest to be used only to add to or to build an endowment, add to or create a scholarship fund, add to a capital campaign, or direct that the funds be used for a specific purpose such as construction or children's programs, financial aid for the deserving, specified research projects, etc.
Make certain when designating a charity that the charity’s proper, legal name is used. For example, many universities and hospitals have foundations that are the proper recipients of their charitable bequests. Also, many churches, have entities outside of the individual parishes that should be the designated beneficiary. Again, the donor can make the bequest to the foundation and then direct that the funds be used to benefit the educational department, research project, or individual parish of the organization.
Last, be specific! Don’t leave a generic bequest such as “$10,000 to the Boy Scouts”. Does that mean the Boy Scouts America, or does it mean Boy Scouts of Orange County? By the way, is the reference to Orange County, California or Orange County, Florida?
There are a myriad of intricate, charitable gifting plans that can be either simple or complex. Many are designed to integrate a donor’s altruism with a goal of maximizing assets during lifetime. However, the two methods mentioned above are easy and provide a way for each one of us to leave a lasting imprint on the lives of countless others, thus giving our own lives greater meaning.
God bless Eunice Shriver Kennedy. She was a great woman who will be missed and remembered by many and she will touch hundreds, if not thousands of people’s lives.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
MICHAEL JACKSON'S CASE ILLUMINATES THE NEED FOR PARENTS TO DO A WILL
Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, was granted custody of Michael's three minor children this week, in accordance with the terms of Jackson's will. Although it appeared that Deborah Rowe, the biological mother of the children, was also a contender for the custody of the children, it is likely that arrangements were made far in advance with her, and she was just rattling her sword, possibly for three reasons. First, she was secured visitation rights with the children; second, the children will never be able to accuse her of turning her back on them; and last, although nothing was reported, the cynical lawyer part of me assumes that there was some financial remuneration for her concession to Mrs. Jackson, although nothing was reported to this effect.
But what if Michael Jackson, being the vibrant entertainer that he was, had procrastinated, and speculated that he had longevity in his family going for him, and had not created his will? Would Mrs. Jackson have prevailed over the biological mother of the children for custody in a court of law? Conversely, what if Deborah Rowe was serious in her attempt to secure the custody; would Jackson's will have prevented her?
The California Probate Court, like its Family Law Court, is always guided by what will be in the best interests of the children. But how does a court know what is in the children's best interests? As in all litigated matters, the court receives evidence and bases its judgment on the facts as presented and the applicable law. What better evidence can a court receive than a guardianship nomination from the one person who is the most bonded with the child, the most knowledgeable about the child and the child's needs, and most concerned about the welfare of the child, than the child's parent? This is why it is essential for all parents, irrespective of the parent's age, to have a will. In California, wills provide for the nomination of the guardian.
Does a nomination of a guardian in a will guarantee that the court will appoint the nominee? Such is not the case, however, the will provides strong evidence of the parent's intentions and wishes. it is "a voice from the grave" giving the court valuable guidance in making its decision. A person in a black robe who is a stranger to the family, is going to lean heavily on the recommendations of the parent and it will be an uphill battle for someone attempting to thwart the parent's desires.
All of this is not to say that a will's nomination is always followed. Parents who nominate someone other than the biological parent (as in situations where the parents are divorced or were never wed), may not have their wishes observed. Likewise, an older child, (depending on the court, ages 7 through 18), will likely be allowed to be heard on the matter (usually through court appointed counsel), and their desires will be given strong consideration.
You have heard the old saying that if you don't have a will, the state has one for you. In a way, it is true. There is a statutorily prescribed "preference" as to whom the court shall award custody. A biological parent has First Priority. this means that there is a presumption that the biological parent is the person who will be in the child's best interest to be appointed guardian. The result of the presumption is that anyone else must overcome that presumption with strong evidence to the contrary, as the law is on the side of the bio parent. A grandparent has Second Priority. But wait....couldn't there be four grandparents? Therein lies the lawsuits. The state has a whole list of priorities, but you get the picture. The state's idea of what is good for the children may not match the parents' ideas. Parents should do a will and update it every few years to make sure it reflects their intentions.
But what if Michael Jackson, being the vibrant entertainer that he was, had procrastinated, and speculated that he had longevity in his family going for him, and had not created his will? Would Mrs. Jackson have prevailed over the biological mother of the children for custody in a court of law? Conversely, what if Deborah Rowe was serious in her attempt to secure the custody; would Jackson's will have prevented her?
The California Probate Court, like its Family Law Court, is always guided by what will be in the best interests of the children. But how does a court know what is in the children's best interests? As in all litigated matters, the court receives evidence and bases its judgment on the facts as presented and the applicable law. What better evidence can a court receive than a guardianship nomination from the one person who is the most bonded with the child, the most knowledgeable about the child and the child's needs, and most concerned about the welfare of the child, than the child's parent? This is why it is essential for all parents, irrespective of the parent's age, to have a will. In California, wills provide for the nomination of the guardian.
Does a nomination of a guardian in a will guarantee that the court will appoint the nominee? Such is not the case, however, the will provides strong evidence of the parent's intentions and wishes. it is "a voice from the grave" giving the court valuable guidance in making its decision. A person in a black robe who is a stranger to the family, is going to lean heavily on the recommendations of the parent and it will be an uphill battle for someone attempting to thwart the parent's desires.
All of this is not to say that a will's nomination is always followed. Parents who nominate someone other than the biological parent (as in situations where the parents are divorced or were never wed), may not have their wishes observed. Likewise, an older child, (depending on the court, ages 7 through 18), will likely be allowed to be heard on the matter (usually through court appointed counsel), and their desires will be given strong consideration.
You have heard the old saying that if you don't have a will, the state has one for you. In a way, it is true. There is a statutorily prescribed "preference" as to whom the court shall award custody. A biological parent has First Priority. this means that there is a presumption that the biological parent is the person who will be in the child's best interest to be appointed guardian. The result of the presumption is that anyone else must overcome that presumption with strong evidence to the contrary, as the law is on the side of the bio parent. A grandparent has Second Priority. But wait....couldn't there be four grandparents? Therein lies the lawsuits. The state has a whole list of priorities, but you get the picture. The state's idea of what is good for the children may not match the parents' ideas. Parents should do a will and update it every few years to make sure it reflects their intentions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
