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

Whoever writes a will can leave their assets to whoever they want. You are not obliged to leave your wealth fairly divided.

You could the whole lot just to grandchildren

You could leave the whole lot to a Fairy Garden charity

One of the reasons why inheritance is complicated is that people refuse to make plans. They become old and confused. This then opens the door for vindictive, grabby family members.

My responsibility is to look after (all) my children, their responsibility is to look after their children. I saw with my grandparents leaving unequal split and the wrenching pain of my parent feeling rejected (again). Before my parents died, they were thinking about leaving a greater split to the 2 offspring who looked after them (I was one). Both my sibling and I said no - you are their parents (albeit with different working relationships), everyone gets the same. I can sleep easily with that.

Adult children should get the same. It's then up to the adult with children to cascade their share down to their children.

Exactly. Why should a person care that they didn't get free childcare for nonexistent children? One adult child may need dog or cat sitting, transport to medical appointments, any number of things.

You’ve missed my point which I probably should have made better. An example: If you have 3 children and the two eldest have grandchildren. Mum and dad have provided child care for those grandchildren saving their children from the expense of nursery fees. If child 3 hasn’t started their family yet (and ultimately we don’t know whether they will have children) mum and dad know that they are not going to be in a position to give that child and any prospective grandchildren the same as the older siblings had. Therefore they could make a provision for childless sibling to inherit a bit more to allow for this. Just a suggestion, some may think it’s a bit out there but I don’t think it’s completely unreasonable. Btw my family circumstances do not resemble this scenario. I just think that if my younger sibling was in this position and my parents suggested it I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

So no one else should inherit if there are dc? No charities, no siblings, no dearest friend, no kindly neighbour who did so much for them..no one. Just the dc.

You do realise dgc are separate people. They aren't the same person as their parent.

People frequently leave something to nieces/nephews/siblings/charities etc.

Why in Gods name are people being so weird about this.

Lots of sibling rivalry perhaps. People who have spent their whole life counting who got more cookies 🙄

Ok. And then perhaps a tally should have been kept from birth. The dc who cost more:activities, sports, clubs, therapy, medical etc should get less inheritance 🙄

The main thing that causes issues would be families not talking about death, wills and inheritance. You would think that if the brothers were spoken to the wealthier one would have no issue with his father leaving a larger share to the ‘ordinary’ son. Creating a bit more equity within the family. There are some circumstances where it would make sense to give more to one child over another.

If the adult dc get the same then they ARE being treated the same. If separate amounts are also given to GC that's nothing to do with what was given to the adult children

They’re not mutually exclusive though

They not mutually exclusive though.

But the minute it starts being dished out to one sibling with a promise of it all being right in the will ... Knowing there are so many ways that just won't happen...

It's pure shit for the sibling getting nowt.

Another example: one sibling spends all their money and then some. Parents constantly bail this one out. It's all added up but ultimately there is likely to be none left to divide fairly or not.
The other sibling might feel aggrieved the parents funded the others lifestyle.

As people on average live longer than they used to, grandchildren are typically adults rather than children that you might leave a trust fund to. I’m child-free but my parents told me recently they’re splitting any inheritance (not that there would be much) 4 ways between me, my brother and my 2 nieces. Sounds cool to me.

We had a similar dilemma.
Two sons.
One son very rich indeed, five million pound house (paid for), seven figure salary, 10 million + investments. No children, coming up to retirement himself.
Younger son, ordinary, well paid (ish) lifestyle, three teenage children.

Originally, their dads will left all money (about 250k) split equally between the three grandchildren with a small (same) amount to each son. This was felt to be wrong as affectively cutting rich son out so was changed to split the estate equally between the two sons.
I think this was probably the right thing to do (I'm the poor sons wife) even though we are really going to struggle with uni costs over the next few years.

I'll definitely leave an equal amount to each dc. It causes hurt and drives a wedge between siblings when people favour one. However in the private fee thread, the father never intended to cut the other daughter (with less money and support) out of the will. He intended her to receive an equal amount. So I can see why she's hurt by it. Especially as the op said she could afford fees for two kids but accepted money for 3 sets of fees. It would have been fairer if op had only accepted half of the 300K and the sister had received the other half. The op is OK with that though. She'll just cut the sister out so she doesn't have to think about it.

In answer to your question of course upon death siblings should be treat equally. Most parents likely word the will to be split equally between the siblings and if one sibling happened to pass away, their share would be split between any children they may have. This is fair.

The other thread was about gifting money while living with the intention of the sister gaining upon the parents death. Most people are aware that circumstance can change and I don't believe in that instance the OP should have been responsible for her father's decision.

I was on the side of the original poster on the inheritance thread. Her dad chose to gift her children a private education while still living on the premise that the sibling inherited the same upon his death.

Unfortunately due to unexpected reasons there was no money left in the estate leaving the sibling with nothing. What if the OP did not have 150k savings, what would be expected then?

Personally I would be happy that my parent was able to fulfil their own dreams while living and if that meant me being at a disadvantage, I would be happy for them.

This said, I personally would treat my own children the same. If I gifted 1 child's household 100k, I would do the same for the other at the same time and it would be their choice how to use it.

It may sound hypocritical but I could not deny the joy it would have brought my parents to do something that meant so much to them while still living.

Splitting equally between your kids is the easiest and least contentious thing to do. If you gave birth/adopted or whatever X number of kids then you divide your estate between them, equally. No one can be hurt or confused by that.

I can't imagine trying to work out the relative value of each of my kids.

If some of your kids turn out nicer or better than the others isn't that a little bit down to you. You raised them after all. One of my siblings is a bit of a shit but he's still my Mums child. She doesn't like him particularly but he's still her child. Leaving him my Mothers will is the simplest thing to do. My mum is a real softie and couldn't do something as horrible as cutting someone out of a will. I support her completely even though I really dislike that one sibling.

Personally my kids get equal, if either one of them has kids, they can choose if they want to share with kids. However, I’d probably leave grandkids some aswell. But that’s just me

It should be equal and fair

What’s quite interesting about threads like this is that it all feels a bit like an Austen novel. And this is surely because of the dislocation in the last 40 years between earnings and house prices, so that we end up having these debates that sound like something out of the early 19th C, because inheritance, for many people under 35-40, has become the only route into home ownership (apart from an advantageous marriage, that is….)

100% agree with an equal split of the majority of an estate between children (unless special needs). Otherwise, so much potential for a rift and unhappiness.

My sibling has children and I don't. There was never any doubt that my parents would split their estate equally between the two of us. My sibling's children will inherit from me and I hope to help them out when they are at Uni/young adults.

What I'm saying is she probably didn't know about the bad investments aswell. In the end I felt that whilst I'd give the sister something she shouldn't outright expect the whole lot.

On that other thread, the sister was involved in choosing the home and knew the cost and the amounts left in her dad's estate. So unless you're suggesting that OP should have sat her down and explained numbers like she was a child, she knew.

Disowned children??