Bitcoin Access Document for Spouse

Spousal Access Planning for Emergency and Death

This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.

Why Spouse Access Is Different

One partner in a marriage holds bitcoin. The other partner does not have access. This arrangement works until it does not—until the holding partner is unavailable and the other partner needs to reach the bitcoin. A bitcoin access document for spouse addresses this scenario: living access, not inheritance. The holder is still alive but unable to manage the bitcoin themselves.

This analysis covers how spouse access differs from other planning scenarios and what makes the spouse relationship distinct. Death is not the triggering event. Incapacity, emergency, separation, or simple practical need may create the access requirement. These situations have different timelines, different urgencies, and different dynamics than inheritance. Planning for them requires different thinking.

---

Why Spouse Access Is Different

Inheritance planning assumes the holder has died. Time pressure exists but not immediate urgency. Heirs may have weeks or months to figure things out. Lawyers, executors, and family members can coordinate. The process is sad but not usually panicked. Instructions designed for inheritance can assume some patience and deliberation in the reader.

Spouse access during life operates under different conditions. The holder might be in the hospital. Bills might need paying today. A financial opportunity might require action this week. The spouse needs access now, not eventually. The document must work when urgency is real and the reader is stressed.

The holder may still be alive and able to provide some guidance. Incapacitation varies in degree. A spouse in the ICU might still answer yes-or-no questions. A spouse traveling abroad might have intermittent communication. The document might supplement rather than replace the holder's involvement. This partial availability changes what the document needs to accomplish.

Reversibility also differs. Inheritance is permanent—the holder is not coming back to resume control. Spouse access during life may be temporary. The holder may recover, return, or regain capacity. The access granted now may need to be limited or modified later. Planning for temporary access differs from planning for permanent transfer.

---

Scenarios That Create the Need

Medical emergencies create immediate access needs. The holding spouse has a heart attack, a car accident, a sudden illness. They cannot manage finances from a hospital bed. Bills continue arriving. The healthy spouse needs to access joint resources, which may include bitcoin the sick spouse managed alone.

Travel creates temporary gaps. One spouse travels for work or personal reasons. An opportunity or emergency arises while they are unreachable—in a foreign country, on a remote trip, or simply in transit. The spouse at home cannot wait for return. They need access during the absence, not after.

Cognitive decline creates gradual access needs. The holding spouse begins forgetting things. At first, they manage with reminders. Eventually, they cannot manage at all. The transition happens slowly. At some point, the non-holding spouse must take over. When exactly should that happen? The document must accommodate a transition, not just an event.

Relationship strain may also create access needs, though different in character. A spouse concerned about being locked out of marital assets during conflict may want access documentation for protective reasons. The dynamics here differ from cooperative planning. Trust, or its absence, shapes what kind of document makes sense.

---

The Trust Dimension

Giving a spouse access to bitcoin means giving them the ability to move it at any time. Unlike bank accounts with institutional oversight, bitcoin transactions are irreversible. A spouse with the seed phrase has the same control as the holder. Full access means full trust.

This level of trust may or may not exist in a marriage. Some couples share everything and would find separate custody strange. Others maintain financial separation and would find joint access uncomfortable. The bitcoin holder's willingness to share access reflects their relationship dynamics, not just their custody philosophy.

Partial access is technically difficult. Bitcoin custody does not have native permissions systems. There is no way to give a spouse view-only access that could be upgraded to spending access if needed. Multisig could distribute control, but that adds complexity both partners must manage. Simple solutions imply full access; partial access requires complicated solutions.

Trust can change over time. A relationship that felt solid when the document was created may feel different years later. The document grants access based on a snapshot of trust that may not persist. Once the spouse has the information, it cannot easily be revoked. The decision to share is largely irreversible.

---

What the Document Must Bridge

Knowledge asymmetry defines the problem. One spouse understands bitcoin custody. The other may not. The document bridges this gap by translating the holder's knowledge into actionable guidance for someone starting from a different place. The holder writes for a reader they know but whose technical starting point differs from their own.

The bridge must work without the holder. If the holder could help, they would. The document exists precisely because they cannot. Every ambiguity, every missing piece, every confusing instruction represents a point where the reader has no one to ask. Clarity matters more than comprehensiveness. A shorter document that is understandable beats a longer one that is not.

Emotional state affects reception. A spouse reading this document may be frightened, angry, confused, or grieving—even if the holder is still alive. Medical emergencies and crises carry emotional weight. The document must work for a reader whose cognitive and emotional bandwidth may be compromised. Calm, simple language helps. Complicated instructions do not.

The document must survive time without maintenance. The holder may become incapacitated gradually, without a clear moment when the document gets updated one last time. Instructions written years ago may be all the spouse has. Built-in guidance about what to do when instructions seem outdated helps the document remain useful longer.

---

Tensions in Creating the Document

Security and accessibility tension exists here as everywhere in custody. A document comprehensive enough to enable access is also comprehensive enough to enable theft if found by the wrong person. Protecting the document from unauthorized access reduces the chance it will be available when legitimately needed. No arrangement eliminates this tension.

Completeness and usability also tension. The holder knows many things about their setup. Writing them all down creates a long document. A long document may overwhelm a stressed spouse trying to find the critical information. Shorter documents may omit things that turn out to matter. The holder must decide what to include and what to leave out.

Current accuracy and future relevance tension. The holder describes their current setup. The setup may change. The document may not be updated. A document that explicitly describes what is true today may mislead if read after changes have occurred. A document that speaks more generally may survive changes but provide less specific guidance.

Sharing and not sharing creates tension. Telling the spouse the document exists invites questions, curiosity, or pressure to review it. Not telling risks the document not being found when needed. The holder must decide how much the spouse knows about the document before it becomes relevant. Each choice has consequences.

---

How This Differs From Heir Documents

Heirs may be anyone—children, siblings, nieces, friends. Spouses occupy a specific legal and relational position. Marital property laws may give them claims to bitcoin regardless of whose name is on custody materials. The legal context for spouse access differs from the legal context for other heirs. Documents may need to acknowledge this.

Spouses often share a home. Physical proximity affects what the document needs to say. Instructions about where to find a hardware wallet may be simpler when the reader lives in the same house. Heirs may live elsewhere and need more detailed location information. The shared physical space shapes the document's content.

Ongoing relationships exist with spouses. The holder and spouse may discuss the document, revisit it, even practice using it. Heirs typically do not have this opportunity because the document becomes relevant only after the holder dies. The possibility of shared review changes what the document can assume about the reader's preparation.

The emotional register differs. Inheritance documents often carry a valedictory tone—final words from someone who will not speak again. Spouse access documents need not be final. They may be practical, even mundane. The holder may be alive when the document is used. This changes how the document reads and what it needs to say.

---

What the Creation Process Surfaces

Creating the document often prompts conversations the couple has not had. Does the non-holding spouse understand what bitcoin is? Do they know approximately how much exists? Do they know where the holder stores custody materials? These questions may never have been discussed. The document creation process surfaces them.

Disagreement may emerge. The non-holding spouse may want more access than the holding spouse wants to give. The holding spouse may want to maintain more control than the other spouse finds comfortable. The document negotiation can reveal relationship tensions that custody planning did not create but does expose.

The holding spouse must confront their own unavailability. Writing this document requires imagining not being able to help. Medical emergencies, accidents, cognitive decline—these are uncomfortable to contemplate. The document exists because the holder might not be there. This reality sits underneath the practical task of writing instructions.

Gaps in the holder's own understanding may appear. Trying to explain their setup, they realize they do not fully understand parts of it. They cannot explain what they cannot articulate to themselves. The document creation becomes an audit of the holder's custody, not just a communication exercise.

---

Summary

A bitcoin access document for spouse addresses scenarios different from inheritance planning. Living access—during incapacity, emergency, travel, or transition—has different urgencies and dynamics. The holder may still be alive but unable to help. The access may be temporary rather than permanent.

Trust determines what access to grant. Full access means full control, with no technical way to limit it. The document bridges knowledge asymmetry between partners while working for a stressed reader without help available. Security, completeness, accuracy, and sharing all create tensions without clear resolutions.

Spouse access differs from heir access in legal context, physical proximity, ongoing relationship, and emotional register. Creating the document often surfaces conversations, disagreements, and gaps that custody planning exposes but did not create. The document serves a specific relationship with specific dynamics that general planning does not address.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Custody Reference for Spouse

Ambiguous Bitcoin Inheritance Instructions and Interpretation Failure

← Return to CustodyStress