Inheritance

Him claiming to be worried about the fallout is disingenuous. He could simply divide the estate equally into thirds then there would be no fallout.

Perfect. So I think a letter explaining her wishes to be read at the same time as the will. And perhaps a token to the others ie B and C kids. Just a gesture

Edit to add: I don't think she needs to worry about the will being challenged if she takes this approach. None of these others are dependent on her or have any reasonable claim to her will. She is independent and getting it done through a solicitor who can attest to her sound mind and if she leaves a token and explanation then really there's nowhere to go. Any solicitor will tell B and C kids this

I would leave something to B and C’s children - maybe £1000 shared between them, plus a ‘thing’ then write an accompanying letter along the lines of I’ve thought very hard about this change, I love you but you haven’t bothered with me, but here’s something for you to remember me by - I know you used to like this picture/vase/disg/coat etc and you can buy something in my memory with this money too. (Having made sure that the things she is leaving them are not wanted by any of A’s family obviously! Assuming the solicitor will cover the proof of her being of sound mind and not influenced by A, then this sort of letter would make it very difficult to challenge the will.

Gosh, I feel quite the opposite. I can't see how you've got 'unkind and manipulative' out of what the OP has said. On the contrary, when J's husband was ill both J and A put him first and were his carers. Now A and his wife are carers for J. How is that unkind? There is no suggestion anywhere in the OP's narrative that A is manipulating his mother into changing her will. The OP, who knows J well, believes it's all coming from J, who has capacity.

As for 'Imagine how her grandchildren will remember her' - given that they never put themselves out to see her, they won't remember her at all from recent years.

As long as a nominal amount is left to the others then it can’t be contested, so I would suggest that.

An alternative to changing the will is for J to put sufficient from the proceeds of the sale into a joint account with A to cover any likely future care costs. This could be a substantial sum and any left when J dies will automatically pass to A. Only the remainder of the assets will then be split 3 ways. This would avoid changing a will at 96 which could be challenged.

J should be contributing a decent amount to the household finances for A, then 1/3 1/3 1/3 on death.

Its not entirely fair on A, but it’ll destroy the family otherwise

Way too complicated to follow. Basically, nobody should ever feel they have any right to an inheritance. The older person in this scenario should blow it all on a cruise, or give it to charity.

The other children are just grifters if they never visits and still expect an inheritance

J has been happy to let A and his wife provide 'many years of hands on care'?!
I hope I don't do that to my adult DC. Any money should have been spent on buying in help or a care home and letting them live their own lives with their own young family.
Equal split to all DC.
Anything else smacks of rewarding preferred behaviour which is distasteful.

What would Js husband (if she had one) have wanted? Would he have wanted to disinherit his two older kids?

J recently requested a solicitor to change her will, she has full capacity. She is changing her will to give A and his wife all of any money that she has left , although A and his wife are providing everything she needs care wise and are not paid to do this so are gaining nothing financially while she is alive.

If A had any morals they would not simply tell J not to worry and that she should leave the will as it is.

I didn’t say they did I was asking where they live incase it was Scotland.

Dynamics like this always muddy the water a bit. Presumably the siblings have always had a very different relationship with their mum and with A than with each other. Perhaps the older siblings and grandchildren feel that they had to sacrifice that relationship as she was focused on A?
I am personally of the opinion that changing wills at 96 is questionable. If the relationships have been minimal for decades, why change it now? If it is not about the money for A, why does her parting gift need to be a family rift?

I'm A in this situation with three sibling, two of which don't see my Mum much and one who is downright awful. I have encouraged my Mum to leave everything equally. I think it's really shitty to divide families by punishing and rewarding people's behaviour with money.

I wouldn't dream of expecting my Mum to compensate me for providing care to her. What a revolting thought. Is that really how some people think.

Maybe B had some clue as to how unkind and manipulative his mother and sibling both were and decided it wasn't worth the bother.

Even if the grandmother didn't like B it's callous of her to cut out her grandchildren. Imagine how they will remember her.

'A' needs to let everyone know what the grandmother has done so they can not bother morning her and can skip going to the funeral.

The fact the grandmother is also cutting her deceased child's children out the will is particularly nasty.

If 'A' had any morals they would not have helped the grandmother change her will.

I have heard in social media stories about this kind of thing that leaving the disinherited a small amount rather than nothing reduces the likelihood of legal action - especially when accompanied by a letter explaining why. I think that C’s children in particular should hear why and not be treated the same as B in the will.

Where do they live as in Scotland you can’t disinherit a child.

They can complain all they like. If J has capacity and has a will drawn up by a solicitor, which she signs in the presence of independent witnesses, and they sign too, that's a valid will and nothing the B and C branches of the family can do about it. Any competent solicitor will tell them that the cost of challenging a will is enormous and in this case the estate would vanish just on legal costs.

I think what J is doing is very sensible in the circumstances. There may well be very little left anyway if she needs nursing care in the near future.

We were in a similar if less extreme situation - in our case J didn't need quite as much support, and B did input but was hampered by distance. C’s children had always lived on the other side of the world so there was little contact, especially after C died.

Our J left her money as per your J’s original will, and that was a bitter pill to swallow. In particular, C’s children - who had had little real contact with J - inherited the same as A who had done the lion’s share of the caring, and far more than A’s child who had a strong close and active relationship with J and received just a token amount. B felt awkward for inheriting as much as A.

And even though there was relatively little to share out, the thought counted - and it hurt A.

At the end of the day, if J’s children have a good relationship then whatever J does will be fine - if B and C still think they should inherit the same as A and are going to kick off if they don’t then there probably isn’t much of a real relationship there in the first place.

But FWIW I think J is doing the right thing, although some tokens amounts would soften the blow.

There have been a few like this recently, and the problem is they all leave the fallout to the children after the parent has died. There will be bitterness and resentment.

It would be better if J pays A rent and a carers allowance recompense those that were giving her support and care whilst she's alive. Then deal with the residual estate as per the 1/3 per family line. Leaving it all to sort out on J's death doesn't help anyone.

Might just be your wording, but do the siblings all have the same dad?