THE MALDEN ADVOCATE–Friday, August 21, 2026 Page 17 BHRC | FROM PAGE 16 er or not they place the book on the shelf; requiring all school districts, charter schools and local education agencies to adopt their own policies on how to select library materials as long as the policies align with American Library Association standards; guarding against spurious or unfounded challenges to school library books by keeping a book in question on the shelves unless and until a public hearing has taken place and the appropriate authority has voted to remove it; and protecting school employees and public librarians from professional, civil or criminal penalties based on their selection of library materials. “Massachusetts is home to the first public library, public school and university,” said Gov. Healey. “We have always believed that our communities are stronger when people, especially young people, have access to knowledge and a free exchange of ideas. This bill is about protecting the freedom to read, to learn, to ask difficult questions and to encounter ideas we might agree or disagree with. It’s also about protecting our teachers and librarians and allowing them to do their jobs. At a time when President Trump is defunding education and trying to censor any ideas he doesn’t agree with, it is more important than ever that states step up to lead. That’s what we’re doing here in Massachusetts." “Books open doors for students to explore new ideas, deepen their understanding of the world and develop the critical thinking skills they need to succeed,” said Education Secretary Steve Zrike. “Our schools should encourage that curiosity and give students access to books that challenge them, inspire them and help them grow as learners. This law affirms that commitment and supports the educators and librarians who make those opportunities possible every day.” "Politically motivated book challenges are dangerous acts of censorship that harm us all,” said Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “This new law builds a firewall against such cynical acts, protecting students' freedom to read and learn and respecting the expertise of professional educators and librarians. All students should have access to a diverse collection of materials, reflecting a wide range of experiences, identities and challenges. This promotes free expression and helps our society build tolerance, empathy and understanding.” Rep. John Gaskey (R-Carver) was the only legislator to vote against the measure when it was approved by the House and Senate. “[The bill] makes it more difficult for school committees to challenge book selections made by librarians, especially regarding LGBT+ type books that are usually so explicit that they cannot be read in public meetings or even on YouTube without being age restricted,” Gaskey said. “This is not about banning books as they are all available in a multitude of locations, especially the public library. This is about protecting youth from explicit material, regardless of the topic.” ABORTION (H 5595) – Gov. Healey signed into law legislation that would loosen restrictions on abortions that can be performed after 24 weeks of gestation. The bill removes existing requirements that limit abortions at 24 weeks of pregnancy or later to four specific medical circumstances, and instead allows licensed physicians and providers to rely on their best medical judgment when caring for patients. Supporters said that under current law, the four specific categories do not account for the full spectrum of medical conditions encountered by women and their doctors: protecting the patient's life or physical or mental health, or cases involving a lethal fetal anomaly or a grave fetal diagnosis. “I've heard heartbreaking stories from women and families who were preparing to welcome a healthy baby into their family, only to receive devastating news later in their pregnancy,” said Gov, Healey. “Instead of being able to rely on the doctors they knew and trusted at home, they were forced to travel hundreds of miles and pay out of their pockets while navigating unimaginable grief. That should never happen in Massachusetts. This law continues our efforts to have the strongest abortion protections in the country because in Massachusetts, we believe health care decisions should be made between women and their doctors.” “As the Trump Administration ramps up attacks on reproducBHRC | SEE PAGE 18 Asset Protection Planning With Trusts O ne of the concerns that parents might have is devising assets to their children only to later find out that those hardearned assets are later lost in a divorce proceeding. One way to deal with this possibility is to leave these assets to your children pursuant to the terms of your trust. A properly drafted trust is more about providing children flexibility and protection with the hope of not creating unmanageable limitations. Most people look to establish a trust that ends at some particular point in time, typically when a parent feels the child will be mature enough to handle money. In many cases, one third of the trust estate is distributed at age 25, another third at age 30 and a final third at age 35. Others prefer one half at age 30 and the remaining trust assets at age 35. Distributing assets to children at too young of an age often results in the children making bad financial decisions or being taken advantage of by a scam artist, which is happening all of the time, especially to the most vulnerable people, such as financially inexperienced young people and the elderly. Typically, upon the death of both parents, a child who is old enough and mature enough will be named a successor trustee to carry out the terms of the trust. If the child has not reached a certain age and a certain level of maturity, the parents will often appoint a third-party trustee to administer the terms of the trust and to make distributions on behalf of the child such as for health expenses, educational expenses, housing expenses, etc. Parents are often concerned that if assets are distributed directly to children upon death, any one of the children could subsequently get divorced only to see those inherited assets become part of a divorce proceeding. Leaving assets to children via a trust does have the benefit of “spendthrift” provisions designed to provide better protection to the children in the event of an ongoing divorce proceeding or prior to such a proceeding when things aren’t going so well in the marriage. Consequently, depending on the particular family and all of its dynamics, a family trust could be drafted to last longer, long after a child reaches the age of say 35. This is another reason why in some situations, naming a third-party trustee might be better than naming a child as trustee. If the child has discretion to make distributions to himself or herself upon the death of both parents, then a probate judge in a divorce proceeding might order the child to make such a distribution representing that child’s share of the parent’s estate, thereby bringing those assets into the divorce proceeding. Trusts can often be classified based upon their distribution provisions as being either support trusts or discretionary trusts. Each state varies in its interpretation of the trust terms. Discretionary trusts will tend to protect children in the event of a future divorce and the potential alimony and child support issues inherent in such a proceeding. A support trust may very well cause a problem for a child because the court may require the trustee to make a distribution from the trust in order to satisfy what the court believes to be a “support” obligation of the child, whether it be in the form of alimony or child support. Consequently, a pure “discretionary” trust would seem to offer the most protection in these situations with a third-party trustee serving as opposed to a child (particularly the child that would most likely be the one to be involved in such a proceeding based upon facts and circumstances known to the parents at the time of the trust creation). A traditional “support” trust might not always be the way to go, as including language in such a trust that states that the child’s “standard of living” is to be maintained, might somehow lead a court to interpret that language as equating to an obligation on the part of a trustee to make a distribution to a child in order to satisfy an alimony or child support obligation. This is in contrast to simply providing income or principal to the child in order that the child have sufficient assets in order to be able to pay for his or her own food, shelter, medical expenses, etc. In our litigious society, we all have to be very concerned with lawsuits originating from any source and the more protection contained in a trust the better, even at the expense of limiting children’s access to the trust assets for which the parents funded into trust for their benefit. In any event, it is important to make informed decisions. What’s right for one family is not necessarily right for another family. Different circumstances, beliefs and priorities will result in different choices for each family. In the end, there are never any guarantees. Joseph D. Cataldo is an estate planning/elder law attorney, Certified Public Accountant, Certified Financial Planner, AICPA Personal Financial Specialist and holds a masters degree in taxation.
18 Publizr Home