In modern financial planning, there is an increased emphasis on engaging both partners in a client couple; reasons for this range from better understanding the household’s goals, ensuring everyone is heard equitably, and retaining one partner in the event of a disaster. Yet the reality for many couples is that financial decision-making, like many aspects of household management, naturally evolves into a division of labor based on interest, temperament, and strengths. And in some cases, forcing equal participation may actually create unnecessary friction rather than deeper engagement!
In this 191st episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and client communication expert Carl Richards discuss how to engage both partners of the relationship – and if it is necessary at all on a regular basis. As a starting point, the term “disengaged spouse” itself carries an implicit judgment – suggesting that one partner’s lack of enthusiasm for financial planning is a problem to be solved rather than a preference to be respected. In practice, many so-called disengaged spouses are not irresponsible or uninformed; they are simply disinterested in the mechanics of financial planning and comfortable delegating that responsibility to their partner and planner. Just as couples commonly divide responsibilities around parenting, home maintenance, or career management, financial oversight may simply be another area where one partner takes the lead. And while advisors often interpret limited meeting participation as a risk factor, some clients may feel relieved when they are not pressured to attend recurring planning meetings that they find tedious, stressful, or inconsistent with how they naturally process information.
At the same time, recognizing a spouse’s disinterest does not eliminate the need for inclusion altogether. Effective planning still requires understanding both partners’ values, priorities, fears, and goals – especially during the initial planning process when foundational decisions are being made. The distinction is that involvement does not necessarily require identical participation styles. Rather than insisting every spouse attend every review meeting, advisors may instead look for more flexible and personalized ways to help each person feel heard and understood. For some clients, this may involve periodic vision-oriented conversations rather than technical review meetings. For others, it may mean informal check-in calls, written reflections, or even voice memos shared before a meeting. The goal is not mandatory attendance, but meaningful input.
Two conditions become especially important when one partner intentionally delegates financial responsibilities to the other. First, the disinterested spouse must genuinely feel heard and understood. Advisors and the more financially engaged partner need to actively create space for that person to express concerns, priorities, and preferences in whatever format is most comfortable. Even if they are not participating in every meeting, they still need confidence that their perspective is represented in the planning process. Second, the disinterested spouse must also accept responsibility for the delegation itself. If they choose not to participate deeply in ongoing decisions, they must still support the outcomes collectively rather than distancing themselves from decisions after the fact. Delegation can work effectively, but only when paired with trust, communication, and shared ownership of the results.
Ultimately, the most effective planning relationships may come not from forcing identical engagement, but from recognizing the diverse ways couples collaborate, communicate, and delegate — and adapting the planning process to support clients where they are most comfortable and best able to thrive.
