Intent #2: To have other money that is earmarked for the benefit of the children and their guardian to buy whatever additional vehicle or housing, etc. is necessary to accommodate their new situation.

Note: Many of the risks inherent in Beneficiary Designations (A) through (F) were explained in the Intent #1 section and won't be repeated in this section; however, they do apply to this section as well.

Beneficiary Designation (A): With a properly drafted trust as beneficiary, Intent #2 can be carried out easily and effectively.

Beneficiary Designation (B): Naming a trusted adult as beneficiary may work, but does depend on a few things to happen if it is to work well. As mentioned earlier, for it to work well this trusted adult should be the one named in your will as the person you (and your spouse -- if applicable) have nominated in your will as the chosen guardian of your children in case you (and your spouse) die; and that person should end up getting approved by the court. If not, it could get problematic, as was explained in the Intent #1 Section, under Beneficiary Designation (B).

Beneficiary Designations (C) Through (F): Intent #2, as described earlier in this article, is not only meant to benefit the children, but also their guardian. It is meant to make it easier for everyone, even if it is not absolutely necessary. It is even meant to reward the guardian for taking on the new burden.

In Beneficiary Designations (C) through (F), the money is earmarked in such a way as to be considered exclusively for the benefit of the children, to be spent only if very necessary. The informal trustee in (C) and maybe (D)* could get away with not being that strict and stringent because he would not be supervised very closely. But still he should be careful, because someday, sometime, he may be asked to give an accounting. The custodian in (E) may be able to do it, but could more easily be brought to task for it, if it wasn't thought to be absolutely necessary for the children. Under Designation (F) and maybe (D)*, the court would probably be the one to approve it or not, which it wouldn't do unless it thought it was very, very, necessary for the children.

For example, in the strict sense of solely expanding a house for the children's sake, it might be approved if the intended guardian had a two bedroom house and already had two boys, and now would become the guardian of a girl -- anybody would justify allowing an upgrade to a three-bedroom house so that the girl could have her own room. On the other hand, if there was no problem like that and the only complaint was that the new situation was a bit cramped, it might not get approved unless it was severely cramped, for example with six children in one room.

*Depends on which insurance company the insurance is with, because some insurance companies interpret it differently than others.