Question: My husband and I have two sons who are exact opposites. One is 45, married to a teacher, has two children, and never misses a day of work. The other is 38, can’t hold down a steady job, has been married three times (resulting in five children), is always behind on his child support, and is usually broke. We have a wonderful relationship with our older son’s children, but never see our younger son’s because he is always behind on his support payments.

When the second of us dies -- assuming there is something left to leave, the way things are going -- we want our assets to be divided equally between our sons. But we are concerned that our younger son will either blow what he inherits if he gets it in a lump sum, or his funds will be taken by a creditor and will not benefit him. Is there a way to protect our younger son from himself?

Answer: When your child or another potential beneficiary of your estate is -- for lack of a better term, a spendthrift -- and you want to make as sure as you can that the funds you leave will be used as you intend, it is wise to include a “spendthrift” provision in your trust.

For hundreds of years, “spendthrift” trusts were used by the English to control and limit beneficiaries’ access to money so they could not squander it and their creditors could not touch it. These trusts were used by anxious fathers to keep inheritances designed to benefit their married daughters away from their sons-in-law and creditors because, in those days, married women could not own property in their own names.

Today, every trust created by one person for the benefit of another should contain a spendthrift provision directing the trustee not to distribute any sums to a creditor of the beneficiary. In some trusts, the spendthrift provision has been expanded to direct that the trustee pay “necessaries” for the beneficiary by making payments directly to third-person providers for the beneficiary, rather than to the beneficiary. Necessaries include such expenses as food, shelter, utilities, medical and dental care, etc. In this way, the funds never touch the beneficiary’s hands and, therefore, generally can’t be grabbed by creditors before the monthly expenses are paid.

While spendthrift clause may help beneficiaries who are unemployed, have creditor problems, or, like your son, many former wives, depending on your state of residence, state law may limit the applicability. For example, some states don’t allow these provisions, while others place limits on the amount that can be protected from creditors. A number of states permit those vendors who supply necessaries to make claims against the trust. Still others permit enforcement of valid court orders and judgments for alimony and child support.

No spendthrift provision protects the trust assets from claims by the Internal Revenue Service or state departments of revenue for past-due taxes, penalties, and interest. And whether these provisions protect trust funds from plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits is in flux.

Talk to a lawyer in your area who is knowledgeable about the law of your state, and then take the steps that, in his or her judgment, will provide as much protection as may be available.

Taking the NextStep to Curb Medicaid Costs: The governors of our 50 states have been working feverishly to present a Medicaid reform proposal to Congress that will reduce the benefits of a program now covering 53 million poor Americans. Despite the ever-increasing numbers of seniors on fixed incomes who become chronically ill, the governors are trying to reduce the number of people who seek Medicaid benefits, but not a word has been said about the growing number of illegals who come into this country and take advantage of these programs each year.

This new package will probably offer even fewer benefits to the working poor and uninsured, meaning that some people will not get treated, and those of us who use traditional health coverage, will continue to be gouged by higher premiums. Moreover, to reduce the states’ expenditures on long-term care and nursing homes, the governors plan to “clamp down” on what they refer to as “wealthy seniors” who transfer assets to qualify for Medicaid.

The governors’ solution for these “wealthy seniors” of undefined means? Give them tax credits to buy long-term care insurance (which most can’t qualify for or afford), and allow them to “ . . . keep some percentage of their home, some amount of fixed dollars that they can pass on [to their children] and then encourage reverse mortgages to pay for their long-term care. . .”. Reverse mortgages, governors, can’t be used when folks are in nursing homes and the house is empty. And why not suggest instead that the more than $22 billion per year that will lost if estate taxes for the really wealthy (the richest one percent of Americans) are repealed be used shore up programs for the less fortunate?