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

Yes but they should imo- if you have disowned children that’s a diff thing but honestly I don’t understand leaving money to people aside from your children- unless we’re talking millions of pounds and a few k won’t make a difference

I would always do 50 /50 to my children.

Maybe a smaller sum to grandchildren.

It’s up to the parents to provide for their kids, and in the end (for example) the remaining money my parents left to my child free sibling will be left in turn to my kids as the nieces and nephews.

My Mum suggested a 5 way split in that brother 1 would get 1/5, and me and brother 2 would get 2/5 each based on how many children we had. Me and brother 2 said no. It would be 1/3 each or bypass us and give each gc 1/5 each.
That said, I’d rather they enjoy their retirement spending as much as they want now.

This sounds like a good system.

But if I inherited a large sum tomorrow it would help my DC. My siblings DC and my bro in laws DCs are at /approaching the uni stage while mine are younger. If we inherited tomorrow we would pay off the mortgage than save the rest for uni fees and or future deposits etc or if it was a smaller amount just pay off the mortgage then save the money we would have used for mortgage payments for the DCs future.
If a parent decided to leave there money to my siblings kids because they happen to be at prime benefiting from money age I wouldn't think that fair. Likewise if (fingers crossed) a parent lives for many more years and the dNs are already home owners by then I wouldn't expect them to be cut out in favour of my DC because they happen to be the right age at the time.

Why would it hurt to be treated the same as your brother? Was he hurt too? Inheriting from you isn't the same as it will be a generation later. Most grandchildren are at an age to benefit more from an inheritance.

But money doesn't always have to go to the deceased children . What if the children are awful people?

Money can go to anyone the deceased has named in their will. I didn't know what was in my parent's will until very recently. She could have left money to her neices (who were wonderful with her), any friends who were still left alive, her cleaner, her carers, a charity, a number of charities ...

Inheritances don't just go to children.

Yes, this comes up a lot on these threads. And sometimes it's about the money itself, but often it's about a display of favouritism for one which leaves the other feeling worthless and unloved.

The children should inherit the same amount as each other; the grandchildren could inherit in their own right.

If it were me making a will, I think the percentages would depend on ages. For instance, I wouldn't leave a large sum to 60 year olds who've built up assets, and not much to 25 year olds who are starting out. But if my children were 35 and the grandchildren were 5, the grandchildren would only get a token amount as I'd figure the children needed it more.

In my family the children tend not to inherit- it goes to the grandchildren. Mainly because the children have managed to buy houses and had the opportunity to do so- and the grandchildren need a hand to get on the ladder.

My will says the same- it's for the next generation not for my children- whom are little (under 8) and are already set up for life with houses already sorted for them (thanks to our tenants)...

Treated the same. I’ve split mine equally between my kids, with their share being split between their kids if either or both of my sons predecease me.

Equal split. The alternative has ruined my life.

It totally depends on the circumstances, let’s say the childfree one is well off, not married and owns an expensive property (quite possible in London/South East) and is intending to leave everything to their nieces and nephews anyway, then it would be daft to leave them a large amount of money because they’d end up paying inheritance tax on it when it could be left to the grandchildren by the grandparent as ‘direct descendants’ there would be no/less inheritance tax payable.

My nana though she was closer to my DM than her other daughter who was a half sister of my DM, but both daughters equal inheritances and it was for them to decide what they shared. She did state we got X share which was more than generous. Her other daughter though as far as I recall only had one child whereas my DM had me and DB and my nana still stated the same amount should go to him and not more. But how could she police that after she died? He had 3 children but she left them nothing as they’re her great grand children. Also my DM and our family were closer to my nana than the other DD (there were reasons some if which we found out after my nana died) so my nana always felt closer to us.

When my Mum broached the subject of adding her her DGC to her will - my DCs – I told her it wouldn't be fair and that her will should be split equally between me and my childless DB. Only fair.

Why should you do that though? You can do what you want with your inheritance, spend it on anything you like or it may be needed for care home fees or other necessary but unexpected expenses.

110% the same. No question. Number of grandchildren is irrelevant.

Treated equally

Exactly the same or you are simply sowing seeds of generational division and hatred.

@sleepyscientist I feel the same way about dear PiL’s money, but they will likely leave to DH. I’ve asked if he would at least use it to buy a property in a trust for them that we can all use during our life time but which protects that money for the DC (and won’t mean paying IHT on it, when we leave it to them). Really wish they’d spend it on cruises to make sure the govt doesn’t take it for care costs, but MiL is absolutely resolute in a 50:50 split for DH and DSiL (which is just our kids, so they’ll also get everything from DSiL one day too as she adores them both).

No wonder she was cut out if she wasn't going to put it to any good use!

I find the fact that so many posters think you should be financially rewarded for caring for elderly parents wrong.

@LookWowWhatAView my point wasn't about 'being rewarded' - it's making sure that the caring child is not in a much worse position as a result of helping with care. It depends on the situation.

I know someone who basically gave up a £200,000 a year career to care for their elderly parent who'd lost a spouse and make sure that they could stay in their home and wasn't lonely. They moved in with the parent. The other option would have been residential care because live in care would have been too expensive as two carers were required.

The move-in was at the point where the child was at the top of their career and could have had 10 good years making a lot of money. They sacrificed that to help their parent have the best end of life but it spanned that crucial period of top earner - to early retirement.

A parent in that type of situation making an inheritance adjustment isn't 'rewarding' in the sense of making the caring child better off because they weren't financially capable of filling that financial hole with their own inheritance, they are just trying to do the right thing to make sure the caring child didn't pay too heavy a price over all.

Inheritance from grandparents is likely to come at a time when grandkids could actually benefit from it I.e money for uni, starting a business or a house deposit. Adult DC are likely already establish so as much as we would all enjoy a bit of extra cash it's better used on the kids who are the extended family. I hope my parents enjoy their money and if they want to leave anything behind it is passed to DS

busy yes indeed - reading between the lines I think the mum was upset to be cut out and felt she was entitled to it as she was the sibling. Grim.

The error was in making the parents trustees. If you leave money to grandchildren, there should be a non-parent trustee and the access to the funds should be lock up until DGC reach 18.