Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[firie]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Hi Melissa,

I hear what you're saying...and my sympathies are with this woman.

However, I can't see her telling the family that she's transgendered within a week of her husband's death.

Seems to me that the only way the husband's family would know this about her is if he told them before his death.

She had SRS, I believe, two months after they were married. She claims she was honest from the get go, before they were married.

But I am going to say this: That's not the point, in my opinion. Any cis-gendered woman, not legally divorced, would be entitled.

And her assets have been frozen. She is living off of donations.

~~~~~~

And as for Littleton--and no offense, but unless you live here and you are personally battling Littleton, then I don't think you can say it's not entirely indisputable. Dylan went to court to get an "M" on his license, and the judge denied it because of Littleton. Believe me, it's kinda the bible here as far as Texas courts go.

No offense, Sue. It's just one thing to argue that, but it's another thing entirely when it impacts one directly.

And honestly? Back to the family, I am going to default to her story regardless what the family says. She deserves that from me, in my opinion.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by firie

She had SRS, I believe, two months after they were married. She claims she was honest from the get go, before they were married.

But I am going to say this: That's not the point, in my opinion. Any cis-gendered woman, not legally divorced, would be entitled.

And her assets have been frozen. She is living off of donations.

And as for Littleton--and no offense, but unless you live here and you are personally battling Littleton, then I don't think you can say it's not entirely disputable. Dylan went to court to get an "M" on his license, and the judge denied it because of Littleton. Believe me, it's kinda the bible here as far as Texas courts go.

No offense, Sue. It's just one thing to argue that, but it's another thing entirely when it impacts one directly. And honestly? I am going to default to her story regardless what the family says. She deserves that from me, in my opinion.

No offense taken. I was just posting what I had read, and they were talking about the remaining possible legal avenues. As you say, reality can be another thing altogether.

[firie]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

No offense taken. I was just posting what I had read, and they were talking about the remaining possible legal avenues. As you say, reality can be another thing altogether.

Yeah, sorry. That was a horrid, horrid court day. I am really jumpy about Littleton. Nasty evil that it is. Phyllis Frye thinks they can beat this. So maybe it's not indisputable, but it just really feels that way.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by firie

She had SRS, I believe, two months after they were married. She claims she was honest from the get go, before they were married.

But I am going to say this: That's not the point, in my opinion. Any cis-gendered woman, not legally divorced, would be entitled.

And her assets have been frozen. She is living off of donations.

Hi firie,

Unfortunately lots of families get nasty when there's an inheritance at stake...especially when it's significant (as the article implied since he was killed in the line of duty).

She is entitled, and I do feel for her. It's an ugly part of human nature that many people will attack any vulnerability they see to get what they want - and clearly his family are willing to use any argument to prevent her from inheriting.

This is why we all need to be sure to take the legal steps to protect the interests of the partners we love. We can't trust the good faith of families, or the right thing to be done in court unless we've guaranteed it with wills, etc.

[firie]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Hi firie,

Unfortunately lots of families get nasty when there's an inheritance at stake...especially when it's significant (as the article implied since he was killed in the line of duty).

She is entitled, and I do feel for her. It's an ugly part of human nature that many people will attack any vulnerability they see to get what they want - and clearly his family are willing to use any argument to prevent her from inheriting.

This is why we all need to be sure to take the legal steps to protect the interests of the partners we love. We can't trust the good faith of families, or the right thing to be done in court unless we've guaranteed it with wills, etc.

Yeah, I know how ugly things can get when it comes to legal disputes, saw that with my mom and dad, so.

I don't know if a will would protect her per se in benefits she deserves that wouldn't have been thought out in a will, like her husband dying in a fire, on the job. That is not likely to be specified in a will, because you wouldn't have it at the time to will it to anyone, correct? I think it gets a bit more complicated than just having a will, but just me.

And again, I guess I just stress that the family wouldn't have this ability to argue in court if she wasn't a transwoman. Which is where the injustice is, in my opinion.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by firie

Yeah, I know how ugly things can get when it comes to legal disputes, saw that with my mom and dad, so.

I don't know if a will would protect her per se in benefits she deserves that wouldn't have been thought out in a will, like her husband dying in a fire, on the job. That is not likely to be specified in a will, because you wouldn't have it at the time to will it to anyone, correct? I think it gets a bit more complicated than just having a will, but just me.

And again, I guess I just stress that the family wouldn't have this ability to argue in court if she wasn't a transwoman. Which is where the injustice is, in my opinion.

I'm not sure who's paying out in the event of a firefighter's death on the job...but I do know that most "on the job" kinds of life insurance and/or death benefit have a designated beneficiary. It's not automatically a spouse, but can be named to anyone.

Sounds like some confusion on the media coverage too...the article I read said that the parents are trying to get 100% of the estate paid to his children, not that they are trying to get anything for themselves.

At some point, someone in here (or maybe it was on the dash site?) had started a thread about the steps we can take to legally protect our partners. Maybe we need to get that started up again...

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by JustJo

I'm not sure who's paying out in the event of a firefighter's death on the job...but I do know that most "on the job" kinds of life insurance and/or death benefit have a designated beneficiary. It's not automatically a spouse, but can be named to anyone.

Sounds like some confusion on the media coverage too...the article I read said that the parents are trying to get 100% of the estate paid to his children, not that they are trying to get anything for themselves.

At some point, someone in here (or maybe it was on the dash site?) had started a thread about the steps we can take to legally protect our partners. Maybe we need to get that started up again...

If you have a private insurance policy, you can name your beneficiary and it will stand. However, with traditional pension plans, same gender spouses, sadly, are not usually allowed to receive death benefits.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Stearns

If you have a private insurance policy, you can name your beneficiary and it will stand. However, with traditional pension plans, same gender spouses, sadly, are not usually allowed to receive death benefits.

You're right, pensions have a whole different set of rules.

I know that on my job we are covered for 2 years of salary as life insurance through the company, and that can be designated to anyone. If I were not to designate, then it follows the usual rules of estate distribution (spouse first, kids second, etc.)

I still think the critical message is don't trust family to do the right thing after you're gone. We have to do the legal paperwork to ensure that our loved ones get everything they can, and that we want them to have.

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by JustJo

You're right, pensions have a whole different set of rules.

I know that on my job we are covered for 2 years of salary as life insurance through the company, and that can be designated to anyone. If I were not to designate, then it follows the usual rules of estate distribution (spouse first, kids second, etc.)

I still think the critical message is don't trust family to do the right thing after you're gone. We have to do the legal paperwork to ensure that our loved ones get everything they can, and that we want them to have.

I agree that we need to do everything we can, but, unfortunately, our partners aren't allowed to get many benefits, regardless of how much we want them to. I'm glad to hear you work for a progressive company. I had a choice between a traditional plan and a 401K and chose the 401K, because I can name my beneficiary. But, since my insurance policy is completely employer-provided, my wife won't be able to collect any death benefits.

[firie]

Originally Posted by JustJo

I'm not sure who's paying out in the event of a firefighter's death on the job...but I do know that most "on the job" kinds of life insurance and/or death benefit have a designated beneficiary. It's not automatically a spouse, but can be named to anyone.

Sounds like some confusion on the media coverage too...the article I read said that the parents are trying to get 100% of the estate paid to his children, not that they are trying to get anything for themselves.

At some point, someone in here (or maybe it was on the dash site?) had started a thread about the steps we can take to legally protect our partners. Maybe we need to get that started up again...

Yeah, there are different media accounts on what the family is doing. Her lawyers are saying that the family didn't file an injunction on behalf of the children, and that the children are entitled to quite a bit of money regardless of whether Nikki wins or not. The family is fighting to get her widow's benefits, and other assets. Not what the children are entitled to--and I think they get their college paid for too. That's coming from her side, and I guess, and this is just me, I don't really care what the family is doing. And as heartless as this may sound, I don't care what money is going to whom or what the family wants to do with the money or if the money is going to the children, and people can think of me as horrid and evil for that.

The point of injustice, to me, is that: She wouldn't be in this position if she wasn't a transwoman. She wouldn't be scrutinized in the way that she is, they wouldn't be accusing her as fraud, and there wouldn't be nasty, heinous, horrid things all over the media and internet about a woman who just lost her husband. They wouldn't be saying things about her body in the way that they are saying things. That is my issue. And I am not in the courtroom, so I am throwing my support behind her regardless of where the money goes.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by firie

Yeah, there are different media accounts on what the family is doing. Her lawyers are saying that the family didn't file an injunction on behalf of the children, and that the children are entitled to quite a bit of money regardless of whether Nikki wins or not. The family is fighting to get her widow's benefits, and other assets. Not what the children are entitled to--and I think they get their college paid for too. That's coming from her side, and I guess, and this is just me, I don't really care what the family is doing. And as heartless as this may sound, I don't care what money is going to whom or what the family wants to do with the money or if the money is going to the children, and people can think of me as horrid and evil for that.

The point of injustice, to me, is that: She wouldn't be in this position if she wasn't a transwoman. She wouldn't be scrutinized in the way that she is, they wouldn't be accusing her as fraud, and there wouldn't be nasty, heinous, horrid things all over the media and internet about a woman who just lost her husband. They wouldn't be saying things about her body in the way that they are saying things. That is my issue. And I am not in the courtroom, so I am throwing my support behind her regardless of where the money goes.

I do agree, and I do see what you're saying.

I also know that some estranged (but still legally married) spouses who are not transgendered find themselves in this same legal battle, particularly when there are children of an ex-spouse involved.

The difference is that it isn't turned into a media feeding frenzy - and that is an absolute travesty, in my mind. No one who is greiving should have to deal with this level of media attention.

[firie]

Originally Posted by JustJo

I do agree, and I do see what you're saying.

I also know that some estranged (but still legally married) spouses who are not transgendered find themselves in this same legal battle, particularly when there are children of an ex-spouse involved.

The difference is that it isn't turned into a media feeding frenzy - and that is an absolute travesty, in my mind. No one who is greiving should have to deal with this level of media attention.

Yeah, and I am not arguing with you, so please don't see it that way, but it is more than just that Jo, and with all due respect, it is NOT the same in my opinion as estranged wives who have legal battles with ex-spouses when the other spouse dies. It is not the same, and not just because of the media frenzy and the tragedy that is the "public" response to Nikki.

It is a court having the right to say whether your marriage is null and void, based on who you are--regardless of the money. It is a court saying you are going to have to suffer even further while we figure out if you are a boy or a girl. It is a court freezing assets for an indeterminate amount of time because we don't like the idea that you might be a "tranny" and got one over on this poor family. There are money/spousal disputes, sure, but then there are also other things at stake here for her, as well as many other people. It is more than just a money spat to me. That is what I am getting at. Sorry, sometimes things like this just hurt, hurt, hurt!

[Boots13]

This is heartwrenching.

And another absolutely outrageous example of bias by the
community and goldigging by the ex.

I cant imagine the emotional trauma and anguish this woman is going through.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Hi firie,

Unfortunately lots of families get nasty when there's an inheritance at stake...especially when it's significant (as the article implied since he was killed in the line of duty).

She is entitled, and I do feel for her. It's an ugly part of human nature that many people will attack any vulnerability they see to get what they want - and clearly his family are willing to use any argument to prevent her from inheriting.

This is why we all need to be sure to take the legal steps to protect the interests of the partners we love. We can't trust the good faith of families, or the right thing to be done in court unless we've guaranteed it with wills, etc.

Although a will may allow for transference of some property after death, it would not allow for any pension/death benefits (in this case, so far, 60 000 in benefits have been frozen in addition to whatever other assets), to be given to the surviving same sex spouse--which Nikki Araguz is considered under Texas law if she was identified as male at birth.