Offer to Settle - should I offer STBX my work benefits through my employer

[plainNamedDad44]

Hi Community,

I am working hard on my Settlement conference. As part of my offer to settle I am thinking of offering my employer benefits to her. i.e. we would stay separated, not divorced and that seems to enable extension of my medical benefits to her.

I see this as a possible bargaining chip that may help me in other areas.

Any comments ? My lawyer has advised against it as it creates a status quo, i.e. what if I change jobs ? etc.

[standing on the sidelines]

I know for my agreement I stay on his benefits until we are divorced or for as long as they are available through his current employer. So if he changes jobs then I am out of luck.

[HammerDad]

Hi Community,

I am working hard on my Settlement conference. As part of my offer to settle I am thinking of offering my employer benefits to her. i.e. we would stay separated, not divorced and that seems to enable extension of my medical benefits to her.

I see this as a possible bargaining chip that may help me in other areas.

Any comments ? My lawyer has advised against it as it creates a status quo, i.e. what if I change jobs ? etc.

You have to first check to see if your employers benefits will allow for non-spouses to be covered. There are many that do not.

Second, I would lead towards no. I agree with your lawyer that it could create status quo. Otherwise, I don't mind the wording in SOTS order, that it is for the current employer. That wording would be important should you agree to cover her, change jobs and the new benefits won't cover non-spouses.

It could be a bargaining chip, but not one I would use heavily. You want to cut ties with the ex. This is just one more tie that can end up being a headache down the road.

[Rioe]

Hi Community,

I am working hard on my Settlement conference. As part of my offer to settle I am thinking of offering my employer benefits to her. i.e. we would stay separated, not divorced and that seems to enable extension of my medical benefits to her.

I see this as a possible bargaining chip that may help me in other areas.

Any comments ? My lawyer has advised against it as it creates a status quo, i.e. what if I change jobs ? etc.

It would depend on your employer, and your pension. Many pension programs have different division rules based on divorce date, not separation date. For example, mine has some weird rules about how survivor benefits are done if someone dies while separated but not divorced. There might be a hidden cost to not divorcing so your ex can continue to receive benefits - she might get a windfall upon your death as well. Also, though it's probably far from your mind right now, you would be unable to add anyone else spouse-like to your benefits if your ex is hogging that spot. You may want to inquire at your workplace to find out what the ramifications might be, anonymously if you have to.

Personally, I believe in closure. There's something mentally liberating about cutting every last possible thread that connects you to your ex. Besides the children of course.

[OntarioMomma]

You have to first check to see if your employers benefits will allow for non-spouses to be covered. There are many that do not.

Second, I would lead towards no. I agree with your lawyer that it could create status quo. Otherwise, I don't mind the wording in SOTS order, that it is for the current employer. That wording would be important should you agree to cover her, change jobs and the new benefits won't cover non-spouses.

It could be a bargaining chip, but not one I would use heavily. You want to cut ties with the ex. This is just one more tie that can end up being a headache down the road.

I would listen to this advice.

[OrleansLawyer]

You have to first check to see if your employers benefits will allow for non-spouses to be covered. There are many that do not.

Most employers disallow this. However, most people claim it for their ex-spouse by not telling their employer/insurance company and seem to get away with it.

I see this as a possible bargaining chip that may help me in other areas.

This is what it is.

My lawyer has advised against it as it creates a status quo

Why hire a lawyer then ignore their advice?

However, if you want to offer it, you may wish to consider having a term limit on it (ie, coverage for 5 years).

You may not want to be in a situation where you are obliged to provide insurance indefinitely, since the coverage will be cut if you are divorced (and you need to divorce if you want to re-marry).