Would a Catholic be permitted a "medicaid divorce"?

[DarkLight]

A medicaid divorce is one type of divorce performed for financial reasons - in this case, to obtain government healthcare benefits. I am aware of a case like this, although the couple was not Catholic. The wife was unfortunately struck with an incurable cancer. She required intensive hospice and palliative care, which is very expensive and which the husband’s insurance did not cover.

Medicaid counts all assets of a couple to be counted and expended. There are some exceptions (there were fewer then than there are now). One notable issue is that medicaid counts the retirement accounts of both spouses as assets which must be spent before medicaid will assist. In this case, the husband was working but nearing retirement age, meaning spending these accounts would have left him unable to care for himself in the future.

Now, medicaid divorce is legal. It’s not considered fraud by the government, although generally it does require an equitable distribution of assets. My question is whether this would be permitted to a Catholic?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I don’t know anything about “medicaid divorce.” However, note that the Church does not always forbid civil divorce. It forbids divorce and remarriage, if the marriage is valid, per the Gospel teaching of Christ.

 

[MaryT777]

It’s an interesting question. If one has a Medicaid divorce or any type of civil divorce granted, my understanding of Church teaching is that the couple is still married in the eyes of the Church until one spouse is no longer alive.

Perhaps a priest/deacon or expert in Canon law will answer.

I pray for those in this situation. Losing one’s life saving to the extent one could not take care of themselves would be frightening.

Mary.

 

[BroIgnatius]

A bishop can allow a civil divorce for the protection of the spouse/kids, for what in the old days was called a legal separation whereby custody, property, and finances are determined, or for what we are talking about here, as long as the couple knows that they are still married in the eyes of God and His Church. This is little known, but within the power of the Bishop.

Herein are listed the canon laws which together show that a Catholic is not supposed to file for divorce on his own authority, without first getting the permission of the bishop or the bishop’s mandated delegate.

Can. 1692 § 1. Unless other provision is legitimately made in particular places, a decree of the diocesan bishop or a judicial sentence can decide the personal separation of baptized spouses according to the norm of the following canons.

§2. Where an ecclesiastical decision has no civil effects or if a civil sentence is not contrary to divine law, the bishop of the diocese of the residence of the spouses, after having weighed the special circumstances, can grant permission to approach the civil forum.

§3. If a case concerns only the merely civil effects of marriage, the judge, after having observed the prescript of §2, is to try to defer the case to the civil forum from the start.

Details here

 

[SteveLy]

Great question. Fortunately there are spousal impoverishment laws to help protect the community spouse. A spouses income or individually held assets (such as a 401k) are not included in the Medicaid patients assets.

Jointly held assets can be split up to (roughly $120,000) for each spouse.

The community spouse can keep a primary residence, car and living expenses.

While hiding assets is not ethical, there are legal ways to protect assets in order to have funds available for the surviving spouses future care.

Speaking to a certified Eldercare Attorney would give them the information they need. I want to emphasize a certified Eldercare Attorney here as there are a lot of minute details and Medicaid does not have much grace in allowing for mistakes.

So, to finally answer the question. A divorce to protect assets would not be needed (thankfully!)

 

[Liturgy_Geek_1]

A “Medicaid” divorce means that the couple is divorcing simply to receive Medicaid benefits. This also happens when one half of the couple cannot get Social Security disability because of the financial holdings of the spouse. A divorce is procured simply so the disabled spouse can receive payments. If the couple continues to live together as a married couple, the US government considers this fraud and can, and will, prosecute the couple.

I was personally given this option when trying to receive Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI) for my disabled husband. I refused. This is fraud, pure and simple. I don’t even have to go into the sinfulness of breaking one’s marriage vows simply to get money with this group.

I continue to struggle financially and could have really used the disability payments we would have received had I fallen into temptation and followed the attorney’s advice to divorce my husband so he could get money. But, God’s Providence continues to sustain us and meet our needs.

 

[DarkLight]

Great question. Fortunately there are spousal impoverishment laws to help protect the community spouse. A spouses income or individually held assets (such as a 401k) are not included in the Medicaid patients assets.

This is not always the case, depending on the state. House and first care are not counted, but individually held assets are counted - including retirement benefits. Furthermore, the spousal protection laws can be as low as around $20k, again depending on the state.

(And of course this actual situation was some time ago - I believe the rules got more generous to the surviving spouse within the last 5 years.)

A “Medicaid” divorce means that the couple is divorcing simply to receive Medicaid benefits. This also happens when one half of the couple cannot get Social Security disability because of the financial holdings of the spouse. A divorce is procured simply so the disabled spouse can receive payments. If the couple continues to live together as a married couple, the US government considers this fraud and can, and will, prosecute the couple.

I was personally given this option when trying to receive Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI) for my disabled husband. I refused. This is fraud, pure and simple. I don’t even have to go into the sinfulness of breaking one’s marriage vows simply to get money with this group.

Ethics aside, it’s worth nothing that, unlike SSI benefits, medicaid divorces have been clearly adjudicated in the U.S. as a valid legal option. So while it’s a bit of a weird-sounding legal loophole, the U.S. government has clearly decided that it is not fraud.

 

[SteveLy]

I am so sorry for your situation. Without knowing the specifics I can’t tell you whether the advice you received was accurate / appropriate or not. I would encourage you to consult with a Certified Elder Law Attorney. There may be other possibilities out there which could help.

Professionally I help people apply for Medicaid. The information I listed above is from an Eldercare Attorney and is widely known in the industry.

Just so people understand, Medicaid has built into it spousal impoverishment protections which I listed above. There are other things an Eldercare Consultant or Attorney can discuss with folks based on the specifics of their situation. It might help prevent financial difficulties.

Thanks again for the topic and good luck with your situation.

 

[SteveLy]

This is not always the case, depending on the state. House and first care are not counted, but individually held assets are counted - including retirement benefits. Furthermore, the spousal protection laws can be as low as around $20k, again depending on the state.

(And of course this actual situation was some time ago - I believe the rules got more generous to the surviving spouse within the last 5 years.)

Ethics aside, it’s worth nothing that, unlike SSI benefits, medicaid divorces have been clearly adjudicated in the U.S. as a valid legal option. So while it’s a bit of a weird-sounding legal loophole, the U.S. government has clearly decided that it is not fraud.

How true.medicaid is State and County specific. The point was there are protections built in. I hope she can get some additional help for her situation.

 

[DarkLight]

I am so sorry for your situation. Without knowing the specifics I can’t tell you whether the advice you received was accurate / appropriate or not. I would encourage you to consult with a Certified Elder Law Attorney. There may be other possibilities out there which could help.

Professionally I help people apply for Medicaid. The information I listed above is from an Eldercare Attorney and is widely known in the industry.

Just so people understand, Medicaid has built into it spousal impoverishment protections which I listed above. There are other things an Eldercare Consultant or Attorney can discuss with folks based on the specifics of their situation. It might help prevent financial difficulties.

Thanks again for the topic and good luck with your situation.

This is a question about what would be permissible under canon law. Obviously what an actual Elder Law attorney would say about the situation now is irrelevant. And I’m not sure what “advice I received” you’re talking about.

 

[1neophyte]

Ethics aside, it’s worth nothing that, unlike SSI benefits, medicaid divorces have been clearly adjudicated in the U.S. as a valid legal option. So while it’s a bit of a weird-sounding legal loophole, the U.S. government has clearly decided that it is not fraud.

You are correct. In the light of eternity, the adjudication you speak of is worth nothing.

 

[DarkLight]

You are correct. In the light of eternity, the adjudication you speak of is worth nothing.

It removes one major objection - that the couple would be defrauding the government. So the question becomes whether removing the legal recognition of the marriage is itself a sin (since after all, the couple’s sacramental marriage is unaffected).

 

[otjm]

A bishop can allow a civil divorce for the protection of the spouse/kids, for what in the old days was called a legal separation whereby custody, property, and finances are determined, or for what we are talking about here, as long as the couple knows that they are still married in the eyes of God and His Church. This is little known, but within the power of the Bishop.

Herein are listed the canon laws which together show that a Catholic is not supposed to file for divorce on his own authority, without first getting the permission of the bishop or the bishop’s mandated delegate.

Can. 1692 § 1. Unless other provision is legitimately made in particular places, a decree of the diocesan bishop or a judicial sentence can decide the personal separation of baptized spouses according to the norm of the following canons.

§2. Where an ecclesiastical decision has no civil effects or if a civil sentence is not contrary to divine law, the bishop of the diocese of the residence of the spouses, after having weighed the special circumstances, can grant permission to approach the civil forum.

§3. If a case concerns only the merely civil effects of marriage, the judge, after having observed the prescript of §2, is to try to defer the case to the civil forum from the start.

Details here

Brother: a couple of points - I would guess that not one in one thousand, and possibly one fin ten thousand Catholic couples has any clue that the bishop may have any say in the matter. they simply go to an attorney.

Additionally. Canon law is written for the Catholic Church - meaning, world wide. No decision or decree concerning the marriage by a bishop or tribunal is binding in any way in civil law in the US. There may still be countries somewhere in the world where it might be binding, but it most certainly is not here. The net result is that while the Church (the bishop, here) might have a law on the books indicating that the spouses have some duty to consult with the bishop (or, practically, the parish priest as his visible authority in their parish), the greater likelihood is that it is going to be ex post facto.

 

[otjm]

You are correct. In the light of eternity, the adjudication you speak of is worth nothing.

Canon law provides for separation of the couple in certain circumstances. Canon law, being universal, does not particularly answer civil legal questions, such as the difference between separation and divorce in terms of creditors. The purpose of Canon law is different from the purpose of civil law, and if the intent of the couple is a matter of civil jurisdiction as opposed to church jurisdiction, then the couple is not “violating” their vows - which are still in existence, in spite of a civil divorce, until death or a determination by a tribunal that the marriage was null. Given the latter scenario is exceedingly unlikely to occur, then in the eyes of the Church they are still married until death.

The question appears top be moot in any event, according to the rules and procedures of Medicaid, so it becomes a “what if” which will never be a “what” as the “if” will never occur.

 

[1neophyte]

Canon law provides for separation of the couple in certain circumstances. Canon law, being universal, does not particularly answer civil legal questions, such as the difference between separation and divorce in terms of creditors. The purpose of Canon law is different from the purpose of civil law, and if the intent of the couple is a matter of civil jurisdiction as opposed to church jurisdiction, then the couple is not “violating” their vows - which are still in existence, in spite of a civil divorce, until death or a determination by a tribunal that the marriage was null. Given the latter scenario is exceedingly unlikely to occur, then in the eyes of the Church they are still married until death.

The question appears top be moot in any event, according to the rules and procedures of Medicaid, so it becomes a “what if” which will never be a “what” as the “if” will never occur.

Yeah, that’s what I said. Just with fewer words.

 

[otjm]

I don’t even have to go into the sinfulness of breaking one’s marriage vows simply to get money with this group.

Breaking marriage vows has to do with intent. If one has the intent of using a legal means to deal with creditors, and is not intending to “violate” any vows, both are still married in the eyes of the Church. And the Church recognizes separation of bed and board as not a violation of one’s vows.

 

[DarkLight]

Canon law provides for separation of the couple in certain circumstances. Canon law, being universal, does not particularly answer civil legal questions, such as the difference between separation and divorce in terms of creditors. The purpose of Canon law is different from the purpose of civil law, and if the intent of the couple is a matter of civil jurisdiction as opposed to church jurisdiction, then the couple is not “violating” their vows - which are still in existence, in spite of a civil divorce, until death or a determination by a tribunal that the marriage was null. Given the latter scenario is exceedingly unlikely to occur, then in the eyes of the Church they are still married until death.

The question appears top be moot in any event, according to the rules and procedures of Medicaid, so it becomes a “what if” which will never be a “what” as the “if” will never occur.

SteveLy’s answers appear to not match up with what most legal sites are saying. Medicaid is highly variable between states anyway, so this kind of thing might be an issue in one state and not another.

I know I’ve seen severe spendthrift behavior cited as a reason for civil divorce, at least when the other spouse’s livelihood (or that of dependent children) is threatened by the marital debts. However in that case there is a spouse that is clearly committing an injury to the other.

 

[otjm]

SteveLy’s answers appear to not match up with what most legal sites are saying. Medicaid is highly variable between states anyway, so this kind of thing might be an issue in one state and not another.

I know I’ve seen severe spendthrift behavior cited as a reason for civil divorce, at least when the other spouse’s livelihood (or that of dependent children) is threatened by the marital debts. However in that case there is a spouse that is clearly committing an injury to the other.

It appears that Medicaid is covered by both state and federal laws; so the advice of seeking an attorney who specializes in elder law is the best approach in determining a course of action.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It removes one major objection - that the couple would be defrauding the government.

But would it be?

After all, the government (Supreme Court, actually) proclaims that a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman. If that’s not a fraud, then I don’t see why a civil divorce for medical reasons would be.

 

[DarkLight]

But would it be?

After all, the government (Supreme Court, actually) proclaims that a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman. If that’s not a fraud, then I don’t see why a civil divorce for medical reasons would be.

We have a general obligation to obey the laws of the land. So for example, living together while refraining from marriage to retain social security benefits is considered fraud. So a Catholic shouldn’t do that because it’s illegal.