Scroll Left Scroll Right

U.S. Prosecutors: Colo. gunman threatened professor 1 of 9
World Iran: "Rural white" Americans fond of Ahmadinejad 2 of 9
U.S. Minneapolis gunman had just been fired: Police 3 of 9
Gallery Manipulated photography before Photoshop 4 of 9
Sports Regular NFL refs return, get standing ovation 5 of 9
CBS This Morning Beach Boys reuniting for last time? 6 of 9
Politics Voter registration fraud claims singe GOP 7 of 9
Entertainment Another ratings coup for Honey Boo Boo 8 of 9
World Somali militants forced from last stronghold? 9 of 9

February 15, 2012 3:51 PM

Print
Text

Report: Ayla Reynolds' father took out life insurance on toddler before she disappeared

By: Crimesider Staff
Topics: Daily Blotter

Ayla Reynolds

/ AP Photo/obtained from Facebook

(CBS) - The mother of missing Maine toddler Ayla Reynolds says the girl's father took out a life insurance policy on Ayla in the weeks before she disappeared.

Pictures: Ayla Reynolds missing

"In the same week Justin took Ayla from me, he took out a life insurance policy on Ayla," said Trista Reynolds, according to Fox Boston. "Now, why did he take out that life insurance policy? I'm still trying to figure that one out myself. Because who takes a life insurance policy out on their own child?"

Ayla Reynolds vanished last December from her father's Waterville, Maine home. Trista Reynolds says she was in rehab for alcohol abuse when the Department of Health and Human Services sent Ayla to live with her father, Justin DiPietro.

Trista Reynolds is also suing the state nearly two months after her daughter's disappearance, claiming social service workers may be at fault, according to CBS Boston.

Reynolds says Maine officials could have done more and that she called them several times with concerns about her daughter, but they never investigated.

"You have this system that's supposed to protect children and what kind of protecting do they do when a child goes missing or something happens?," asks Reynolds.

Complete coverage of the Ayla Reynolds case on Crimesider

9 Photos

Maine toddler Ayla Reynolds missing

View the Full Gallery »

29 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 29 Comments


by krissi377 February 16, 2012 5:25 PM EST: I agree that it is a good idea to have life insurance for your kids. I have a small policy for each of mine in case something were to happen. Also, my agent told me (and I agree) that it is a good idea for them to have at least some amount of coverage, in case an illness or something arises later in their life that affects their ability to get life insurance at that point. This way, I have something for in case something (God forbid) should happen to them now, and they have at least some coverage to provide for their future families, should something come about later. I don't agree, however, with taking out hundred thousand dollar policies on your kids or anything like that.; Reply to this comment

by PinkDahlia February 16, 2012 4:04 PM EST

I personally can't ever imagine worrying about the possibility that my healthy young child may die and I won't have the money for burial expenses. That's ludicrous. The correct thing would have been for him to get Life insurance on himself so that if he dies, she would be taken care of. There are so many expenses that come with having a child and by the looks of it, they are not well off.

Reply to this comment


by MickeyMouseSully February 16, 2012 7:09 PM EST: Yes the father did get a larger policy on his own life and made the baby his beneficiary to provide for her in the event of his death. The smaller policy was on the child to cover unpaid medical expenses and funeral if anything happened to her.


by janna67a February 21, 2012 5:53 PM EST: Well, some of us can't imagine worrying about the possibility that my healthy young child may die and we wouldn't be able to afford to bury them.

by CrystleW February 16, 2012 11:28 AM EST

First off, you guys need to stop blaming the mother. Yes she had problems, but that doesnt mean shes a bad mom. Hell we all have problems. But blaming her, isnt going to do anything, its not going to bring her back or do any justice. Just sayin.

Reply to this comment


by LibbyB1963 February 16, 2012 1:55 PM EST: No one is "blaming the mother". You just can't believe anything that comes out of her mouth. If she takes and passes the lie detector test...without the use of drugs, I might buy into her story a little more. Until then, she is just as worthless as the father. One or both of them knows what happened to that poor baby. If they love the child the way they pretend, then fess up and suffer the consequences.


by andie52 February 16, 2012 8:06 AM EST: I find that to be very suspicious coming from a guy who lives in his mothers basement, has a girlfriend whose sister has been arrested for dealing drugs and never wanted that baby in the first place he even had a paternity test done to prove she was his. On the other hand I am very leery about anything Trista claims.neither one of them should have been parenting Ayla.; Reply to this comment


by askagain February 16, 2012 1:09 AM EST: This woman is an alcoholic and unable to take care of her own child yet blames the authorities for not doing a better job. This is a classic case of not accepting responsibility and blaming the other guy for her problems. My sympathies go to the poor child. The parents appear to be a mess.; Reply to this comment


by rwsmith29456 February 16, 2012 12:36 AM EST: I had a small policy when I was about 6. I'm glad my parents didn't kill me for it.; Reply to this comment

by IEtOut February 15, 2012 8:27 PM EST

Don't most parents have life insurance policies on their kids?

Reply to this comment


by thewatcherone February 16, 2012 12:25 AM EST: No. Only 15% of all children under age 18 have a life policy on them, and this average has stayed steady fro a decade or more. There in no reason to put as child on a life insurance policy, none.


by dymndz981 February 16, 2012 7:15 AM EST: I thought it was pretty common, I'm 56 and my parents had a small policy on me. I've had 4 children, the oldest being 36, and I had life insurance policies on all of them...not large ones, just enough to cover funeral/burial expenses. I know no one wants to think about a child passing away, but it does happen. So why wouldn't it make sense? Funeral expenses can be very costly and if something does happen, the last thing a parent needs to worry about at that time is how they're going to pay for it. It also provides a nice little savings plan for them and the premiums are cheaper, the younger they are. To me, it's a no-brainer.


by makemyday2day February 16, 2012 9:18 PM EST: Any parent who takes out a life insurance policy on their child was duped - an easy sell for an insurance agent. I used to work for a life insurance company and learned plenty. For one, if you want to create some kind of 'nest egg' for your child, you are CONSIDERABLY better off to go set up a savings account and deposit the money you'd have been paying for an insurance policy. This is true of almost ANY insurance that supposedly offers a cash value. If you want an insurance policy, get a term life policy (NO cash value except in the event of death - much cheaper premiums). THEN, set up a separate savings account. Lastly, buying any insurance policy so you can afford to pay for funeral expenses is disgusting! Why on earth do people spend SO MUCH for a funeral? FYI, the person won't remember a thing!


by TxFollower February 17, 2012 11:54 AM EST: My parents took a small policy out on me that I was able to transfer when I became an adult. I never transferred it to myself as I took out my own policy. My dad still pays the monthly on the one he took out. I took a policy out on my son a few weeks after he was born. I am a young single mother and the last thing I can afford is a funeral. Let alone the price for one that (god forbid anything happens) my son would deserve. For me it seems like it's my responsibility to him. I guess for some thy would look at it as looking for a payout. Of course, my son is now 12 and the policy is 12 years old - and he isnt missing. But to answer the question - Yes - many parents (friends of mine) DO carry minimal policies to cover expenses in the unfortunate event our children pass.


by janna67a February 21, 2012 5:51 PM EST: I had a life insurance policy on both of my kids, it was just a rider on my policy. I paid about $1 a month for each child for a $20,000 policy which was intended to pay residual medical expenses or funeral costs should something have happened to them. Over 18 years, I paid about $200 for the policies. It makes almost no sense NOT to have it for your kids.

by MickeyMouseSully February 15, 2012 8:00 PM EST

This is called cherry picking the information.

The mother and other reports fail to disclose that the father took out a main policy on his own life making his daughter Ayla the beneficiary, so that she would have financial benefits if he were to die. He did that on the advice of his insurance agent.

As part of that prudent financial planning, the agent also suggested a secondary, smaller policy or rider on the life of his daughter to cover medical bills and funeral costs if anything were to happen to his daughter. The insurance agent offered him a discount for taking out the second policy or rider. So it does not seem to me that there was anything intended by this insurance other than prudent financial planning, the same as lots of other American parents engage in.

Reply to this comment


by thewatcherone February 16, 2012 12:07 AM EST: Your information is not only wrong but it's made up. There IS NO info released to the public about the father's insurance policies, your entire comment is a lie.


by linfinster February 16, 2012 1:19 AM EST: Really, just where did you get this information from?


by MickeyMouseSully February 16, 2012 7:03 PM EST: My comment is true. You are a liar to call information a lie when you know nothing about it.


by janna67a February 21, 2012 5:53 PM EST: Where did you come by this information?

by LibbyB1963 February 15, 2012 4:47 PM EST

I agree, the mother has issues and really has no room to talk. You don't use or abuse drugs when you have an infant.

About the life insurance, it depends on the amount. You don't profit on your child's death. The ONLY life insurance you take on your child is enough to give them a nice burial and to pay related expences. Wonder how much this alleged life insurance policy is for.

I don't really take into consideration anything this mother says. She condemned the father for not taking a lie detector test and consented to have one herself then backed down when it dame down to it.

As far as I am concerned, they both need locked up and the keys should be thrown away.

Reply to this comment


by crazy4layne February 21, 2012 10:18 AM EST: Don't judge the mother for being imperfect and having a problem. She went to rehab to try and correct it didn't she? But I guess you're a perfect little angel who's never done ANYTHING wrong. Stop being so judgmental. My money's on the father.

by debbie1120 February 15, 2012 4:42 PM EST

I have life insurance policies on my kids. Obviously, she has no clue

Reply to this comment


by thewatcherone February 16, 2012 12:15 AM EST: There is no reason whatsoever that you'd need a life insurance policy on a child. If your excuse is it's some type of savings plan for your child when they become adults it's both a failed and outdated product, there are much better and legit savings tools. About 15 percent of people under the age of 18 have life insurance, a percentage that has stayed steady for more than a decade. The average amount of coverage on children is $5,000, anything coverage larger than this amount should be red flagged and in many states is. Unless your family line has a severe health history there is absolutely no reason to insure a child under a life policy.


by janna67a February 21, 2012 5:55 PM EST: @thewaterone
Some of us would not been able to pay the upwards of $10k it costs to bury a child. That's why life insurance companies provide insignificantly small riders to the parents' policies for a small amount of coverage intended for funeral expenses.

Why do you find that so wrong?