Should two adult children be treated differently re inheritance, because one has children and the other one does not, by choice or not?

I was lucky and knew my grandparents as an adult for 20 years.
Latterly my siblings and I did a lot to support them - help with hospital trips, days out, navigating funeral planning etc.

When the last one died we agreed to vary the will so that the estate got split threeways rather than two (33% each to the two children (one of whom was our parent, the other didn't have kids), 33% shared between the grandchildren).

I don't think anyone had any issues with this and the money really helped my siblings and I. Our parent also passed some onto my youngest sib as a house deposit (which was evened out amicably in their will).

Absolutely treated the same.

my boys are young but when I die my money and assets will be split evenly between them both. They can decide what they do about any children they may have.

True! I don't understand why people don't understand this. A person's child grows up to be independent of them (one hopes) - it's not like giving extra money to one person.

If my mother had had the 4 children she claimed to have wanted she would have probably left the same amount to each child. As it happens she had two children and two grandchildren and saw them as her immediate family and divided her will accordingly.

If one of the GC had been my brother's would that be fairer then? He and I would still getting the same amount .

A lot can go on behind the scenes that a parent doesn’t know about. Not being given correct facts, not being communicated to by siblings, lies and misinformation given to a parent about siblings - the list goes on.

I know how painful it can feel to be treated unfairly, cast aside, by a parent and having siblings favoured and believed over you.
Purely because of lies.

Equal and fair are the same thing.

@fungipie

This is not at all what I am saying. Give to charities, or whomever- but if you give to your children, it should be the same for all of them.
Yes sure. But their dc are not them. Give the same to each of your dc. And give what you want to other people including your dgc.

The problem is, fair and equal don't always match up and in that scenario you risk a child feeling like their family is being treated unfairly or unequally, whatever you do. Either "my sisters family got 2/3s while mine only got 1" or "they got half when I've got twice as many children".

And that's my point. There is no "why" that makes everyone happy. So people should do what they want and everyone else should butt out.

They are three individuals. The siblings are not joined at the hip (hopefully).

If you leave it to your 2 children, with instructions to support their children, those instructions are pointless as once you're dead and the money is passed on, the 2 children can do whatever they like with it, including pissing it up the wall if they want.

But why? The fact that there's three doesn't make a reason.

If they were leaving it to their children with instructions to support their children, would you still say 2/3 to one side and 1/3 to the other?

Why? That's not what they'd get if the children of the deceased inherited, held onto it and then passed it on as their inheritance, by your own logic. The grandparents are just skipping that step.

I agree with @Drfosters approach. Money moves down each child’s line in equal amounts and gets split as needed. More children means it has to be split more.

Doesn't sound fair to me! Your children get 25% each and your sibling's child gets 50%. Your children are individuals, they didn't choose to have a sibling, and they do not benefit from each other's inheritance.

LIke you say though, wills can cause huge problems and people have different ideas on what is fair.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. As it happens my father is skipping his children out of his will but giving to grandchildren. My children are getting half as much as my sibling’s child as I has 2 and they have 1. I 100% think this is the fair/equitable solution and my children should be grateful for getting anything. I can see both ways but in my mind my sibling and I are equal to my parents and so the amount distributed is equal between us.

i just think money/wills have the capacity to cause massive problems. Equality between children is the only way (unless there are exceptional circumstances) and that then extends to grandchildren.

@UnpackingBooksFromBoxes

I think there is a huge difference when the dgc are very young and some siblings have not had dc but plan to compared to situations where everyone is a lot older and the siblings without dc are never going to have any.

Because the OP wrote about their 3 adult dc and one choosing to be child free I looked more along that line. Where no more gc were ever going to eventuate.

I answered from a place of adult dgc with whom I would have completely separate relationships.

I would consider leaving money to nieces and nephews, siblings and charities as well as my dc. I would include my adult or near adult dgc as more individuals I would leave to. Not just see them as nothing more than an extension of their parents.

If everyone was a lot younger then I agree it would be peculiar to leave money to current very young gc but nothing for those gc who have not yet been born but probably would.

At this age the dc are so young I would t be seeing them as people responsible for their own finances so I would leave just to my dc probably

Dgc are often adults by the time people pass.

My relationship with my dgc is separate to my relationship with my dc. If I fell out with my dc (which I have no likelihood of doing) I wouldn't then have no relationship with my adult or near adult dgc.

Like with my siblings and nieces and nephews whom I may also leave something to, my dgc are completely separate individuals and not some extension of their parents

@Drfosters

I would consider grandchildren to be an extension of a child’s household. Whether a person leaves directly to grandchildren or to children I think it should be that the household amount is the same. I think grandparents should (unless good reasons not to) just give to children and leave them to distribute to the GC’s. There are obviously some exceptions to this but I think it is a fair rule that just stops causing any problems. Clearly grandparents can choose not to leave their family anything - up them!
So you count people as households? I think that's so weird. I count people as individuals.

If my gc were young adults starting out adult life with deposits for houses etc I don't see them as an extension of anyone.

My relationship with them is as individuals. If I say fell out with my dc (the dgc parent) I wouldn't therefore have fallen out with my dgc. They are separate relationships.

Just as I may leave something to a charity or siblings.

I would leave my dc equal amounts and would leave other individuals various amounts. My dgc would my some of those individuals that I would leave amounts to.

Surely it depends on the family dynamic?

I spent a lot of time one on one with some of my grandparents. I would visit them on my own. Other grandchildren did it didn't, depending on their own relationships with them. If they were still around today, I would definitely still go spend time with them. My siblings/cousins wouldn't necessarily.

Now, I'm not saying I should get any inheritance or that other grandchildren shouldn't. But different family members have different relationships. I have a bond with one of my uncles that my sister doesn't (and no, nothing untoward, my mum's family is younger than my dad's so I spent time with my dad's brother and his family as a child, whereas my younger sister was more often with my mum's side). When we eventually lose him, undoubtedly my sister will be sad but for me it'll be like losing another grandparent. My mum's sister is loads younger than her and is therefore more like my elder sister than my aunt.

To be clear, I do not want not expect any money from any of them. But what I do know is that my relationship with those family members will be considered differently to others nieces or nephews. By me and them.

Therefore, some grandparents may wish to leave something to grandchildren with whom they have a close bond. Others may see them as an extension of their children. And either is ok.

I would consider grandchildren to be an extension of a child’s household. Whether a person leaves directly to grandchildren or to children I think it should be that the household amount is the same. I think grandparents should (unless good reasons not to) just give to children and leave them to distribute to the GC’s. There are obviously some exceptions to this but I think it is a fair rule that just stops causing any problems. Clearly grandparents can choose not to leave their family anything - up them!

Honestly, the way things are in the world, I think I'd rather they gave it to my DD. I'm on my feet. She's going to need help, which I'm aiming to be able to give her but can't guarantee. Seeing her set up would mean more to me.

This.

I have DC, my sister does not. She has had more physical, emotional and financial support from my parents than I have. Because she's needed it. There might come a time when I need more. But having children or not doesn't factor into it, and what support we've needed doesn't factor into it either.

They love us the same. They treat us fairly, which doesn't always mean equally. It just means they make sure we get what we need.

The person inheriting doesn’t, I’m talking about the parents factoring it into what they leave each child as per my explanation at 08:18.

But as her father made the bad investments himself, when he was in control of his finances and had the capacity to do so, is it still OPs responsibility to make sure her sister knows about them years down the line?

How do we know her father didn't discuss them with her at the time? My parents would tell both of us if they moved. We'd both know where to, we'd both be able to do whatever research we wanted to. We're both able to look at market values.

It's not my responsibility to make sure my sister understands the implications of my parents financial decisions, until the time it's probably me making them as their POA. It's not OPs responsibility to make sure her sister understands that her father deciding with his own money and capacity to buy a retirement flat costs money, that there's fees associated with them when selling them on or that they often lose money.

You should leave your inheritance to your children - you brought them into the world, so help them out. It's up to them whether they give any money to their own children who they chose to bring into the world. Leaving money to grandchildren is such a slap in the face to the generation in between.