Would a Catholic be permitted a "medicaid divorce"?

[DarkLight]

I guess I have a hard time seeing a divorce done in full view of the courts and as a matter of public record as “hidden.”

If it were my friends and family, I would consult with them as to the best possible way to manage things. Personally, I’d rather ask for a known expense now than rely on them for an extended who knows what I’ll need retirement. But if I know them directly I can talk to them and ask them what they think the best option is.

Bureaucracy, unfortunately, doesn’t really allow for that option. It also can put people in a case where legitimate needs might not be met - it’s not really set up to consider all the factors in someone’s life and what different individuals might need.

 

[YADA]

So there is a basic protection in the law to prevent total impoverishment but people still feel justified in hiding assets in order to establish poverty to gain public assistance …and if it’s ourself or someone we know …then it’s justified

We as a people have lost our moral compass …

My folks owned a cafe … Small town … Everyone knew there were people on disability …one gentleman had a bad back …unable to work …but he could do any other intensive activity using his back with no problem …the fact that family and friends knew this but excused it away is very sad …but now the entire country feels entitled in the same way …

When it’s the deep pockets of the government …somehow it doesn’t feel like theft …it is theft …but we have lost sight of the reality. Whether is SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, SDI, Workers Comp …people deserve their piece of the pie …even if they have to lie

 

[DarkLight]

So there is a basic protection in the law to prevent total impoverishment but people still feel justified in hiding assets in order to establish poverty to gain public assistance …and if it’s ourself or someone we know …then it’s justified

The fundamental problem is that, depending on the state, plenty of people don’t think that the protections in place prevent total impoverishment. I’ve seen some of the amounts on various state disability and benefit programs…they’re not livable, many haven’t been updated in decades. Many programs are also based on averages, what may be sufficient in Newburgh NY may not be sufficient if you’re in the greater NYC area.

And of course if you do end up on medicaid and welfare after retirement, the same people are going to be going on about how “entitled” you are because you rely on government aid instead of having saved up enough.

 

[YADA]

The fundamental problem is that, depending on the state, plenty of people don’t think that the protections in place prevent total impoverishment. I’ve seen some of the amounts on various state disability and benefit programs…they’re not livable, many haven’t been updated in decades. Many programs are also based on averages, what may be sufficient in Newburgh NY may not be sufficient if you’re in the greater NYC area.

And of course if you do end up on medicaid and welfare after retirement, the same people are going to be going on about how “entitled” you are because you rely on government aid instead of having saved up enough.

I’m sorry …but hiding assets to appear impoverished so you can get others to pay your costs is not right …

They cannot in any jurisdiction take a home from the other spouse …they cannot take 100% of income for one spouse leaving the other zero for Living in expenses …for example 100% of both people’s social security to cover the one …

So yes it may create a hardship …a house maybe list to heirs when that second spouse dies …but we have no guarantee of outcomes …and we marry for the good and the bad, sickness and health …

You would not demand that your family friends and neighbors pick up this cost while hiding assets. You know you wouldn’t. You deft would not hide your assets, plead poverty and demand their assistance even that they had to borrow the money if necessary. You know you would not …the government is comprised of those same people…your friends your neighbors, your family …the Bank is bankrupt …if everyone hides assets those in real need will not receive it. And theft is stealing …

 

[DarkLight]

I’m sorry …but hiding assets to appear impoverished so you can get others to pay your costs is not right …

They cannot in any jurisdiction take a home from the other spouse …they cannot take 100% of income for one spouse leaving the other zero for Living in expenses …for example 100% of both people’s social security to cover the one …

So yes it may create a hardship …a house maybe list to heirs when that second spouse dies …but we have no guarantee of outcomes …and we marry for the good and the bad, sickness and health …

You would not demand that your family friends and neighbors pick up this cost while hiding assets. You know you wouldn’t. You deft would not hide your assets, plead poverty and demand their assistance even that they had to borrow the money if necessary. You know you would not …the government is comprised of those same people…your friends your neighbors, your family …the Bank is bankrupt …if everyone hides assets those in real need will not receive it. And theft is stealing …

Again, I don’t particularly see a divorce in public court as hiding assets. It’s publicly declaring a particular division of assets.

What you can very well end up in a situation where the surviving spouse now has a house…and a car…and about $1000 a month to live off for the rest of his or her life. The federal government considers that a reasonable amount for someone to live off of. How far do you think that $1000 a month is really going to last a retiree, unless they’re in an exceptionally low cost of living area?

 

[YADA]

Again, I don’t particularly see a divorce in public court as hiding assets. It’s publicly declaring a particular division of assets.

What you can very well end up in a situation where the surviving spouse now has a house…and a car…and about $1000 a month to live off for the rest of his or her life. The federal government considers that a reasonable amount for someone to live off of. How far do you think that $1000 a month is really going to last a retiree, unless they’re in an exceptionally low cost of living area?

The divorce is a pretense …that is wrong …

You can spin it all you want …it’s wrong …you never answered the question …replace the faceless government with the people who fund it … would you divorce your spouse in order to hide assets, plead poverty thus to force your neighbors to pay for your spouse’s care even if they had to go into debt to do so allowing you could keep an income of $2000 per month instead of $1000 ?

 

[DarkLight]

The divorce is a pretense …that is wrong …

You can spin it all you want …it’s wrong …you never answered the question …replace the faceless government with the people who fund it … would you divorce your spouse in order to hide assets, plead poverty thus to force your neighbors to pay for your spouse’s care even if they had to go into debt to do so allowing you could keep an income of $2000 per month instead of $1000 ?

I did in fact answer the question - if I was dealing with someone I could actually know and talk the situation over with, I would sit down with them and discuss what the best long-term plan for my assets was given the situation I was in. That could very well be paying off the known current expense.

I would also expect that when working with people I know I would have more assurance if I had a need in the future that someone would help me deal with it. Instead of what being on government aid can be like, which is “sorry you need a $2000 dental procedure to stop a major infection that’s both dangerous and causing significant pain, but we’ve decided that isn’t a covered expense so it sucks to be you.”

 

[YADA]

When someone is truly in need the program is there …what is being discussed is gaming the system …sure bad things happen …people struggle …with finances and health …

I think what you are missing is that when people cheat …there is also less for those who have nothing …not even the $1000 of your example …

So it’s okay to hide assets so you can have $2000 instead of only $1000 …even if it means the program becomes insolvent leaving those without even $500 per month nothing…

We are not talking about an unlimited well of money …

And theft is still theft …a fake divorce is still wrong …even if 100% of couples choose to do so …

 

[DarkLight]

When someone is truly in need the program is there …what is being discussed is gaming the system …sure bad things happen …people struggle …with finances and health …

Have you been on welfare? Because in my experience, when someone is truly in need, the answer is “good luck, we have a few scattered programs and if your need doesn’t line up with a pre-arranged set of what we have, sucks to be you.” And if you turn to the people around you the answer is “well you should have been more responsible, not our fault you don’t have enough savings, you should have made better plans earlier.”

And again, a public divorce in a government court can in no plausible way be considered hiding assets from the government.

 

[SteveLy]

Look, I want to make a few points.

1. Like the old song says “you can feel bad if it makes you feel better”. Some folks aren’t happy unless they are unhappy. Have run into many of them in my years in ministry and learned early on some people just won’t allow a “win” in their lives. No judgement from me, live as you want.
2. If you worked and paid a little tax called SSI, receiving Medicaid Disability is not “some government handout”, but a system you paid into for the benefit of those who need it, which may be you or a loved one. Nothing wrong with working within the rules the Medicare/Medicaid system to receive benefits.
3. If you are worried about needing long term care (more than 65% of Americans will), BUY A LONG TERM CARE POLICY or SET UP A FAMILY TRUST to protect your assets. The earlier you start the better.
4. While I read up on Medicaid divorces, as far as I can tell, it would be an extremely rare situation where one would be needed. There are tools within the system to protect the community spouse even if the loved one is currently in a nursing home.

PAX.

 

[DarkLight]

1. While I read up on Medicaid divorces, as far as I can tell, it would be an extremely rare situation where one would be needed. There are tools within the system to protect the community spouse even if the loved one is currently in a nursing home.

PAX.

Yeah, I was mostly interested in how canon law applied to the difference between legal and sacramental marriage in cases like this. I know legal divorce is permitted in cases where one spouse’s deliberate actions cause a threat to the other spouse (and I understand a serious financial threat can count, for example if one spouse is a persistent gambler).

I’ve also known of a case where a Catholic couple legally married significantly before their sacramental marriage, and that this was not an issue. It was an issue of immigration law.

So call it a bit of curiosity about canon law and theology rather than advocating for this or that course of action. Of course the best solution for any given couple would have to be determined with the priest and any relevant professionals.

 

[YADA]

Have you been on welfare? Because in my experience, when someone is truly in need, the answer is “good luck, we have a few scattered programs and if your need doesn’t line up with a pre-arranged set of what we have, sucks to be you.” And if you turn to the people around you the answer is “well you should have been more responsible, not our fault you don’t have enough savings, you should have made better plans earlier.”

And again, a public divorce in a government court can in no plausible way be considered hiding assets from the government.

Funny …people who complain about government programs want more government programs …just read your post …

I have been very poor and qualified for many programs …but avoided them like the plague they are …they trap you …kill your drive …ruinous for families. Me I went to college …with three kids …but chose a better degree I guess . I worked and the built a business …life’s not easy …but I work and work hard.

Those in my extended family that gave in gov orograms …well they remain enslaved to them …

I have an adult child that nearly died during a job change with lack of health insurance. I see many young people give up …he didn’t …went back to work …his condition is permanent and may very well shorten his life …but he has not let it stop his work ethic and he has gone from minimum wage to about $16 per hour …his wife is now working full-time and he has three kids …he goes to work every day …just last week he was t boned at work …worked the rest of that day and the rest of the week …

People who have funds but divorce in order to protect those funds and apply for benefits are essentially stealing from those truly in need and from tax payers like my son who could also find many reasons not to go to work …valid reasons …but go anyway because it’s what a responsible adult does.

 

[DarkLight]

And I have lost a job because it had become quite obvious with my health conditions that I was no longer capable of showing up reliably and performing work to any sort of reasonable standard that an employer would accept. I have a significant amount of debt precisely because there wasn’t any particular support available where I was and the rent had to be paid somehow. I lived with friends and family and used government programs to pay for my health care to get well enough that I could manage to show up to a job on a regular basis. My ability to get back to work was delayed by difficulties in finding care that I could afford. (Plus the fact that treating mental health conditions can just plain old be a long process, especially with people like me who have idiosyncratic reactions.)

Talking about “work ethic” is nice, but it doesn’t always go that way. I’ve had days where the fact that I managed to get out of bed and eat a little food took all of my energy - I was lucky if I could manage to get a shower in there. There’s just no amount of work ethic that’s gonna get me to hold a steady job there.

 

[Mammoths]

It sounds like fraud to me. Filing a divorce with the state but remaining married before God. That might also be bearing false witness because of giving affirmation or oath of the divorce while still being married.

 

[BroIgnatius]

It sounds like fraud to me. Filing a divorce with the state but remaining married before God. That might also be bearing false witness because of giving affirmation or oath of the divorce while still being married.

In such a situation the couple is civilly divorced. There is no fraud, which is a legal term, because the divorce is legal.

One does not give affirmation/oath of the divorce. A divorce is a decision made by the court.

Being married in the eyes of God is a religious issue which has no bearing on civil law. All Catholic couples who divorce remain married in the eyes of God and His Church unless the Church determines there was no Sacramental marriage to begin with.

In terms of a Bishop giving permission for the couple to get a civil divorce with the understanding the the couple are still married under God (which they should know anyway), it is for reasons of the good of the couple and the children. The bishop will not give such permission if there is a fraud involved.

Now, most of the time when a Bishop gives such permission it is usually over the issue of domestic violence or abandonment and the like in which the protection and welfare of the spouse and children is secured by legal means to determine child support, separation of property and assets and the like.

This was not an issue 60 years ago when it was common to have a Legal Separation, in which the couple are still married in civil law, but separated. That legal tool is not used in most jurisdictions anymore giving rise to bishops granting permission for divorce (which is really a separation. It is simply the only way to have a separation these days.

By the way, when a couple divorces and the custodial spouse goes on welfare, the state sues the non-custodial spouse for child support.

 

[DarkLight]

In terms of a Bishop giving permission for the couple to get a civil divorce with the understanding the the couple are still married under God (which they should know anyway), it is for reasons of the good of the couple and the children. The bishop will not give such permission if there is a fraud involved.

Right - the judgment of what is moral would be determined by the Bishop, ideally with a good discussion with an appropriate attorney or estate planner to determine what the couple’s financial options actually are.

By the way, when a couple divorces and the custodial spouse goes on welfare, the state sues the non-custodial spouse for child support.

In a case where minor children are involved, yes - divorce does not end one’s legal obligation to provide for one’s children. It does end the legal obligation towards the debts of one’s spouse.

 

[BroIgnatius]

It does end the legal obligation towards the debts of one’s spouse.

That is true only if the court agrees. The court can assign the non-debtor spouse to pay all debts or the spouse can volunteer to pay all debts (which is what I did).

 

[DarkLight]

That is true only if the court agrees. The court can assign the non-debtor spouse to pay all debts or the spouse can volunteer to pay all debts (which is what I did).

Correct, although in this case I was thinking primarily of future debts. I suppose it could happen, but it would seem unlikely.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Correct, although in this case I was thinking primarily of future debts. I suppose it could happen, but it would seem unlikely.

There are times when even future debts may be required if one has a very good lawyer

 

[e_c]

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

Here is some helpful information on this complicated topic:

canonlaw.info/PDF-Divorce.pdf