Taite, Freedom of Disposition v. Duty of Support: What’s a Child Worth?

Phyllis C. Taite has made available for download her article, Freedom of Disposition v. Duty of Support: What’s a Child Worth?, published in the Wisconsin Law Review. The Abstract is as follows:

Mandating financial responsibility for the care of children during one’s lifetime is without question. Child support laws have been implemented in every state in America based on the inherent duty to financially support dependent children. Some laws even extend that duty to provide financial support to children over the age of eighteen when the child has a disability or pursues higher education.

Just as entrenched is the right of a decedent to dispose of his property as he pleases, known as freedom of disposition. Every state has intestacy provisions that provide for disposition of property after a decedent’s death, trumped by specific wishes of the decedent in the form of a Last Will and Testament or any other testamentary document. When these two principles clash, which public policy principle should prevail, freedom of disposition or duty to financially support children?
The duty to support children should be paramount in any just legal system, especially after death when a source of financial support is no longer available. As such, testamentary freedoms should be subordinate to the duty to financially support children. In order to ensure financial protection of children, forced shares should be implemented to provide financial provisions to minor children in testate estates. Additionally, an elective share system should be adopted to provide minimum financial support to adult children, based on age, in testate estates.

This Article explores historical justifications for favoring freedom of disposition and also provides a comparative analysis of how other countries deal with the duty to support families, specifically children, after death. The selected civil jurisdictions for the focus of this Article are Spain, Louisiana and British Columbia. The selected jurisdictions under common law systems are New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.
Part I provides relevant historical information about the civil and common law systems. Part II focuses on the requirement that parents provide financial support to their minor children during their lifetimes. Part III concentrates on the financial responsibilities of decedents after death to their surviving children. Part IV discusses the history and justifications of financial responsibility of decedents to surviving spouses. Part V proposes ways to balance freedom of disposition with the duty of support and the conclusion follows.

Download the full article by clicking Taite, Freedom of Disposition v. Duty of Support: What’s a Child Worth?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s