Divorce with a special needs child trust attorney

A divorce involving a child with significant disability differs from an ordinary one in almost every dimension: the custody arrangement has to accommodate a care regime rather than a school schedule, the financial settlement has to survive into the child’s adulthood, and decisions taken for tax or convenience can undo benefits eligibility years later. It is a planning exercise as much as a dispute. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. has practiced since 1997 and Mr. Sris is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and New York. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

On This Page

The Parenting Arrangement

A standard alternating schedule may be unworkable where a child requires routine, specific equipment, a particular care team or continuity of setting. What the arrangement has to accommodate is the care regime, and that is established from clinicians and providers rather than from a template.

Decision-making needs more definition than usual. Medical decisions, therapy selection, educational placement and eligibility applications each require someone to decide and someone to implement, and where parents disagree the mechanism for resolving it should be in the order rather than discovered in a crisis. In Virginia the court weighs the statutory factors at Va. Code § 20-124.3, including the age and condition of the child and the needs of the child, which is where this evidence goes.

The Financial Settlement Has to Look Further Ahead

An ordinary settlement is built around a child reaching independence. Here that assumption may not hold, and the settlement is built around a period that may extend across the parents’ lifetimes and beyond.

That changes what matters: continuation of support beyond majority where the jurisdiction permits it for a disabled adult child; life insurance securing the obligation and who owns and controls the policy; how each parent’s estate planning treats the child; and above all whether any of it is directed in a way that preserves means-tested benefits eligibility.

The Recurring Mistake

Naming the child directly as a beneficiary of life insurance, a retirement account or a will. It is the natural thing to do and it can be the most damaging single step in the settlement, because assets received directly can end eligibility for the benefits funding the child’s care.

Directing those interests to a properly constituted trust instead achieves the same protection without the consequence. That is technical work and the firm refers the drafting to counsel who do it, but the family law settlement has to be written so that it can be done — which means the two pieces are planned together.

Adulthood Arrives During the Case

Where the child is approaching majority, guardianship or supported decision-making, benefits applications in the child’s own name, and the transition from paediatric to adult services all arrive on their own timetable regardless of the litigation. Building those into the settlement rather than leaving them to be dealt with afterwards is what prevents a further application within a year or two.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does a standard schedule often not work?

Because the arrangement has to accommodate a care regime rather than a school schedule — routine, equipment, a particular care team, continuity of setting. What is workable is established from clinicians and providers rather than from a template, and that evidence goes to the statutory factors about the child’s condition and needs.

What should the order say about decision-making?

More than usual. Medical decisions, therapy selection, educational placement and eligibility applications each need someone to decide and someone to implement, and the mechanism for resolving disagreement belongs in the order rather than being discovered during a crisis.

What is the most common mistake in the settlement?

Naming the child directly as beneficiary of life insurance, a retirement account or a will. It is the natural instinct and it can be the most damaging step in the whole settlement, because assets received directly can end eligibility for the benefits funding the child’s care.

How should those interests be directed instead?

To a properly constituted trust, which achieves the same protection without the eligibility consequence. That drafting is technical and the firm refers it to counsel who do that work, but the family settlement has to be written so it can be done — which means both pieces are planned together.

Does support end at 18?

In some jurisdictions it can continue for an adult child unable to be self-supporting by reason of disability, on conditions that differ between states. Establishing the position early determines whether a continuation mechanism has to be built into the agreement.

What if my child is nearly 18 now?

Then guardianship or supported decision-making, benefits applications in the child’s own name, and the transition from paediatric to adult services all arrive regardless of the litigation. Building them into the settlement rather than leaving them for afterwards prevents a further application within a year or two.

About Mr. Sris

Mr. Sris is the owner and founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., which has practiced since 1997. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and New York. Of Counsel attorneys contract directly with the firm and handle matters alongside him.

Speak With Mr. Sris

Naming the child directly is the instinctive step and frequently the most damaging one, so the settlement and the trust are planned together. Request a consultation. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747. Consultations are by appointment.

Last reviewed: August 24, 2026.

Attorney Advertising. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., principal office: 4008 Williamsburg Court, Fairfax, VA 22032. By appointment. Call (888) 437-7747 to schedule.

The information on this page is general and is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading it or by contacting the firm. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney responsible for this advertising: Mr. Sris.