Life insurance question

[rhutche106]

Original decree required husband to carry life insurance with kids named as beneficiaries and ex as custodian.  It also went a step further to state that kids are entitled to 30% of everything else.  Is this normal? (includes 401K, extra insurance, property, everything)  since the divorce (husband assumed all debt and paid tidy chld support payments) bio mom has run up significant debt even putting her house in foreclosure.

Since we've gotten married, husband wants to change life ins/beneficiary info to state if he were to die, child support would continue as if he were still alive.  Beyond that everything comes to me.  (normal property division if we were both biological parents of the kids). Of course when I die, then everything is to be divided evenly between kids. This is to protect kids money since mom obviously can't manage it as well as insure a relationship with me continues AND keep me secure after his death.  Right now, i'd have to sell the house since that's the majority of where his equity lies.  Also, he doesn't want to be worth more dead then alive to her!  Of course she is totally opposed.

Is this a reasonable request to a judge?  We're going back for other things and this would be part of it.  I just want to make sure it's not something standard.

[Ref]

The order as you have it now is completely unfair. As I understand it, the life insurance clause is there for just what you stated, to keep the court ordered CS paid.

I say go for it. Have it changed if you are going back anyway.

I identify with the whole "being worth more to her dead than alive" feeling. For 14 years, everytime my husband visited SD in her town, I would have a terrible feeling that BM would find a way to whack us for the unfair amount of money in his decree. She is the trustee of the money until SD is 18. Until May 2009 (oh it is sooo soon) I will still be looking over our shoulders.

Best wishes
Ref