Family mad that I used all of nieces trust fund

Yes, it's LOVELY he robbed them blind, when they were children and vulnerable. And yes, they PAID for EVERYTHING FOR YEARS.

Why won't YOU acknowledge children shouldn't pay rent, gas, electric??

That certainly isn't the law in New Mexico. I was a guardian for about ten years, and we specifically incurred no obligation for the dependents expenses. That did have the benefit of the dependent not being entrusted to a corporate guardian.

This debate is not worth worth my time or effort. With one exception, those who have chimed in have the same outlook. You figure it out.

I figured out extremely quickly how unbearable you are.

LOL Pot...kettle? I think so!

You are way off base here, neptuneblue!

The parents died and didn't leave enough funds for their 2 daughters to be well taken care of way up into their college years. Most parents start early with savings account - this didn't seem to have happened here. It's the parents who didn't provide enough for their children, they apparently didn't have a guardian selected either.
Out of all their relatives, no one was willing to take the girls in except this OP here. Yes, they're his nieces, but none of us know his financial situation and what a strain it could have been to provide for them.

The savings the parents provided for the girls wasn't tied to a college fund otherwise they would have provided for that. Uncle got reimbursed for living expenses which is perfectly acceptable and once the savings were depleted, uncle replenished their living expenses with his own funds.

The older girl is 18 years old and she can get a job and go to college at the same time. Millions of kids do it, why not her?

You are the only on here whose opinion is that of an entitled brat - no need to lash out at others. It's you who is wrong, terribly wrong1

The only ones who are way off base are the ones defending a leech.

Of course she can get a job & go to college -- that's not in dispute. What IS a BIG problem is children paying rent, utilities and food from the age of 11.

Why that is acceptable to so many is the conundrum of society.

I'm trying to understand your position but failing dismally. The parents left money to provide for their girls and that's what happened, no? I mean, ideally we all have large trust funds and both parents and college is free. How much money did you have at 18? Were my parents leeches for spending their money on my daily care instead of sacrificing their retirement so I had a free ride to college? Or a car or whatever else I wanted to spend their money on? I went to college when I could afford it. Ideally I wouldn't have had student loans to repay, but I did. It wasn't child abuse. Noone took advantage of me. Seriously, God forbid my folks died and I ended up in foster care. I sincerely think the OP made a generous, and loving commitment to his (her?) nieces, with great sacrifice I might add. To call them a leech is so far from the way I see it that I find your comments disturbing. The children didn't pay for their care, their parents did, or at least their parents paid for five years of their care. The OP paid for the rest. That's only the financial end of things as well. The most important part of taking in two kids has nothing to do with money.


And to the OP if you're still reading, congratulations on being a decent human being.

neptuneblue is doing a good job describing the anger from the family's point of view. It just happens to be unreasonable and wrong.

Tell that to the OP. It's ALL about the money.

From the SSA:

During 2020, we paid an average of $2.8 billion of monthly benefits to four million children because one or both of their parents are disabled, retired, or deceased. These benefits provide necessities for family members and help make it possible for those children to complete high school. When a parent becomes disabled or dies, Social Security benefits help stabilize the family’s financial future.

NOTE: Disabled children whose parents have little income or resources may be eligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Read the publication, Benefits for Children With Disabilities (Publication No. 05-10026).

Who can get child’s benefits?
Your unmarried child can get benefits if they are:
• Younger than age 18.
• Between ages 18 and 19 and a full-time high school student.
• Age 18 or older with a disability that began before age 22.
Under certain circumstances, we can also pay benefits to a stepchild, grandchild, step-grandchild, or adopted child.

To get benefits, a child must have either:
• A parent who is disabled or retired and entitled to Social Security benefits.
• A parent who died after having worked long enough in a job where they paid Social Security taxes.

What you will need when you apply for child’s benefits
When you apply for benefits for your child, you’ll need the child’s birth certificate or other proof of birth or adoption and the parent’s and child’s Social Security numbers. Depending on the type of benefit involved, other documents may be required. For example, if you’re applying for survivors benefits for the child, you’ll need to furnish proof of the parent’s death. If you’re applying for benefits for a disabled child, you’ll need to furnish medical evidence to prove the child’s disability. The Social Security representative who sees you will tell you what other documents you may need.

Benefits can continue at age 18
Benefits stop when your child reaches age 18 unless your child is a student or disabled. If your child is a student Three months before your child’s 18th birthday, we’ll send a notice to you letting you know that benefits will end when your child turns 18. Benefits don’t end if your child is a full-time student at a secondary (or elementary) school. If your child is younger than age 19 and still attending a secondary or elementary school, they must notify us. They must complete a statement of attendance certified by a school official. The benefits will usually continue until your child graduates or until two months after reaching age 19, whichever comes first.

If your child is disabled
For a child with a disability, childhood disability benefits are also payable beyond age 18, if the disability began before age 22.

Benefits for Children
If you take care of a child If you are receiving benefits because you have a child in your care, the date your benefits stop may be different than the child’s. If the child is not disabled, your benefits will end when they turn 16. If the child is mentally disabled, your benefits can continue if you exercise parental control and responsibility for that mentally disabled child. Your benefits can also continue if you perform personal services for a child who is physically disabled. Before the child reaches age 16, we will send a notice to you describing the conditions under which your benefits can continue.

How much can a family get?
Within a family, a child can receive up to half of the parent’s full retirement or disability benefits. If a child receives survivors benefits, they can get up to 75% of the deceased parent’s basic Social Security benefit. There is a limit, however, to the amount of money we can pay to a family. The family maximum payment is determined as part of every Social Security benefit computation. It can be from 150% to 180% of the parent’s full benefit amount. If the total amount payable to all family members exceeds this limit, we reduce each person’s benefit proportionately (except the parent’s) until the total equals the maximum allowable amount.

Contacting Social Security
The most convenient way to do business with us from anywhere, on any device, is to visit www.ssa.gov. There are several things you can do online: apply for benefits; get useful information; find publications; and get answers to frequently asked questions.

When you open a personal my Social Security account, you have more capabilities. You can review your Social Security Statement, verify
your earnings, and get estimates of future benefits. You can also print a benefit verification letter, change your direct deposit information, request a replacement Medicare card, get a replacement SSA-1099/1042S, and request a replacement Social Security card (if you have no changes and your state participates). If you don’t have access to the internet, we offer many automated services by telephone, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Call us
toll-free at 1-800-772-1213 or at our TTY number, 1-800-325-0778, if you’re deaf or hard of hearing. A member of our staff can answer your call from
7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. We ask for your patience during busy periods since you may experience a high rate of busy signals
and longer hold times to speak to us. We look forward to serving you.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10085.pdf

I'm just sad that the girls he took in don't seem to be grateful for all that was done for them.

You don't get this...the children are not paying rent, utilities and food - the children's parents are - that was money that the children's parents set aside to pay for these expenses. The children did not. You are making it seem as if the children were out working and paying for these things. No - the kids parents did this and put money aside. The will stated that the money the parent's earned was to be used for the children's expenses. The will did not state that the money was to be used to pay for college and that whoever takes on the responsibility for caring for our children cannot use this money for their day to day expenses. Of course I have not read the will - I am going by what was told by the original poster - that the lawyer and the will stated this.

So how is this taking money from the children? It was stated that it is money to pay for the care of the children. This is normal legal use of trust money.

I don't take that away from the OP's post at all. It looks pretty clear from what was posted that the OP faced a significant change in lifestyle and expenses and used funds that were designated for that purpose to offset some of that. I can't see where the OP made any money off of this and in fact probably spent significant sums. That money allowed the children to have a standard of living much more comparable to what they likely grew up with.

When my children were young, I went through some of these discussions, and I made it clear that the funds I left behind were to be used to support my children, not saved in a vault somewhere. I also made that clear to my parents and brothers so there would be no confusion. I think that is what most parents would want.

You conveniently left out the following:

"....Eligible children can collect Social Security benefits based on a parent's work record. The parent must have earned enough Social Security credits..."

We do not know this. Based on what was originally written it would be reasonable to assume that they did not have enough social security credits. Why would a lawyer suggest taking out money for expenses from the trust if social security was enough to pay for these children (if they were in a situation to collect social security)? Even if they were entitled and received some social security, it may not be enough to cover their expenses. We do not know this - that is the lawyer's job to make sure that this guardian is not taking money for his/her personal use.

And this is why people leave after one question - you get someone tearing them apart and accusing them of things through assumptions. Rather than trying to give them any assistance.

Kindness works much better than cruelty.

Given that all the expenditures were approved by the lawyer, if the family is upset, then they can take it up with him or her. And, frankly, they should've taken things up with the lawyer years ago if this was such an issue.

You sent in your receipts and you were reimbursed. This happened enough times that you relied on it. If the lawyer was rubber stamping your receipts without reading them, then that's on the lawyer.

I get the feeling why the family didn't question it until now—because it was expected that the money was going to last forever.

But news flash, it hasn't.

College in particular has skyrocketed in price. Even if your brother and SIL made every attempt to cover those costs, it wouldn't have been easy to predict the exact cost of tuition, etc. And they clearly didn't squirrel away enough for food anyway.

The lawyer may very well have had the authority to invest the principal in an effort to grow it. I don't know this without a look at the trust agreement (and I am not your lawyer and have no intention of looking at it, so please don't send it to me, thanks!). If the lawyer/trustee didn't invest the funds properly or even lost money, then that's kind of the breaks.

No, the kids should not have been expected to pay rent. However, their presence in the home meant a larger space was necessary. More heat, hot water. More gas in the car. More food. More clothes. More furniture. You get the picture.

And if the lawyer didn't prorate this then, again, the family's beef should be with the lawyer and not the OP.

And no matter what, for the last 2 years, the OP has paid all expenses due to the trust being drained (and again, once more for the cheap seats, if the family was so concerned about such things, they should have taken it up with the lawyer then). Hence any prorating issue may very well be a moot point, anyway.

Here comes some math!

With no numbers, let's say there the monthly rent in the smaller place was $1000. Now the rent is $1250 due to the addition of kids needing a room(s). With me so far?

With a difference of $250/month for 84 months (all 7 years), that's $21,000. And let's even say OP took the other $1,000 every month for the first 5 years (60 months), for a total of $60,000 taken—but the OP also isn't being reimbursed even for the difference for the last 2 years (24 months). 24 * 250 = $6,000 completely out of pocket.

Under this scenario, OP was entitled to $28,000 but took $60,000. So yes, it's excessive. But only under these extremely artificial circumstances.

After all, rents can and do go up, so the final 2 years, when things were completely out of pocket, could have been higher than the first 2 or even 3 years. And this doesn't even get into other expenses, such as clothes and shoes which are likely higher in cost for the final 2 years than for the first 5.

So without some of these specifics, it's hard to say. It probably doesn't wash completely in terms of raw dollars. But there are also the reasonable costs of childcare. If the OP had sent the kids to a sitter of some sort, or a school program, that stuff's (generally) not free.

The OP should also be entitled to at least some compensation for the costs of simply caring for the children. And yes, this is the case even when they're 16 and mouth off to you that they don't need a sitter.

Again, does it perfectly wash? Probably not. But it's likely nowhere near the windfall to the OP that the family is complaining about—and certainly less than tuition at many colleges for 2 kids going in at around the same time.

<bangs gavel>

I think you're good.

And, yet again. the family should be referred to the lawyer if the handling of the trust displeases them that much. If the lawyer felt the OP was overreaching, then the lawyer had a duty to rein that in. He or she didn't, and that should tell us all something.

Unless other family members chip in, or full scholarships are offered, it seems college may be out of reach. I’d suggest that the 18 year old attend a local community college for two years, get a job, and save $$ and seek scholarships to complete the last two years at university - or get an associates degree from the community college.