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

If you leave money to grandchildren, as well as children, and child A has two dc, and child b has one dc, then I don’t see that as A getting more, as they’re not actually receiving grandchildren’s money.

Here’s an example of what can happen if you leave your money to your grandchildren and not your children! Mum somehow managed to spend £50k inheritance on trips to primark and new look.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480117/amp/mother-stole-daughters-inheritance-elderly-father-recruited-help.html

Not necessarily - ultimately the money bequeathed is at the discretion of the bequestor. If one sibling is a millionaire and the other is struggling, as a parent I’d leave funds to the one struggling but divide special items/heirlooms more evenly. If one has had a close relationship in adulthood, but the other has buggered off, then no. Lots of reasons why a 50:50 split may seem fair but really isn’t equitable.

My parents are splitting everything between my siblings and I and one GC. Our DS passed away a few years ago but it’s only fair her child receives what would have been inherited by her.

Our DN is young and will most likely inherit something from myself and other siblings as they have no parents of their own alive.

My parents have clearly stated the same will happen for our DC if something was to happen to me or my siblings. GC would then receives our share.

I see each person as individual.

I have 3 kids and say I left my house which was worth £300k to them to be split equally they would each get £100k worth.

If DS1 had 3 kids and DD had 2 and DS2 had none then whats left to the grandchildren is left as a result of them being separate people. Say I leave £5k cash to each grandchild out of my savings thats not taking from the £100k worth of estate each child got. I of course wouldn't leave DD an extra £5k cash and DS2 an extra £15k cash on top because they had less/no kids.

I wouldn't unfairly leave £100k to one kid and £20k to another but as long as their 'share' is equal then any other family members (including any ones birthed by one of them) are completely separate inheritors. No different than if I left those savings to an Aunt or Friend or Charity instead of my kids.

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

I don’t expect that. I do find it a worry that I will be homeless with my savings utilised for many home improvements to make their lives easier/better, only to find out they have a considerable nest egg they could have used.

I also find it a worry that I have historically passed up work opportunities and a relationship so that they could remain in their home without strangers looking after them and that now my own old age is so uncertain.

i think it is lovely that they are trying to make sure my sibling’s children are secure in the future.

I’m still allowed to be hurt that my life and future was considered to be worth so very little to them.

I don't intend to leave anything to grandchildren at all. Everything I have (left, hopefully) will go to the three children we chose to have, equally.

Those three children of ours will have made their own choices as to how many children they have, how they support them, what lifestyle or career they have - providing for and leaving money to their own dc is their business.

Agree with the posts saying no one will be getting 'inheritance' early either. We may well choose to give lump sums as gifts but this will always be done equally or the equivalent firmly ring-fenced for the time the other dc will need the same (ie house deposit). No one will be getting their third early with other dc expected to wait years.

I think sly every time with a few exceptions. A pp mentioned a disinherited adult child who is in prison for sexual offences. I don't think it's unreasonable to disinherit him. I also think if there is a child with life changing disabilities then there can be times where they should receive more than their healthy siblings.

Fair doesn't necessarily mean equal. One child may as well be married to a billionaire, or be a Premier League footballer, while the other may be a single parent in a rented flat. Who does need parents' house more?

I agree. Perhaps her DM had wanted to help the younger generation out when they needed a step on to the ladder. Now they’re waiting for their parents/aunt to die. A generation later, all being well.
Your mother should have been allowed to follow her own wishes.

I had a thread on here about this recently.

My sibling and me were given an equal amount in my lone parent's will.

Then my 2 children were given an equal amount split between them 50/50.

I think the consensus was that this was a fair split.

In our family's case, me, my sibling, and her two grandchildren were the closest family our parent had and were equally loved.

Equal treatment.

I don't think I should get more than my DB because I have children and he doesn't.

I think sly every time with a few exceptions. A pp mentioned a disinherited adult child who is in prison for sexual offences. I don't think it's unreasonable to disinherit him. I also think if there is a child with life changing disabilities then there can be times where they should receive more than their healthy siblings.

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

Or the 200k they would get if they were an only child.

Some grandparents see the grandchildren as people they want to bequeath to in their own right, not as extensions of their parents. It isn't "unfair" that the grandparents had extra people in their lives to love them and care for them in their old age!

The children in their sixties could own their own homes and be off spending their children's inheritance on travel and wine. The grandchildren in their thirties and forties could be in rented accommodation and struggling to pay the bills. I definitely see a reason to partially bypass a generation sometimes.

I'd like to think that parents would treat their children fairy unless there had been some serious mistreatment.

My parents will do this and everything will be totally fair and square no matter what. On the other hand I think we will find DH's parents will most likely leave more to his childless sister oddly enough because they see her as not being able to provide for herself (she actually can, she's just totally useless with money and they have constantly had to bail her out over the years). But for some reason because she's not married they see her as not being able to support herself 🤷‍♀️.

It’s not as cut and dry as everyone should be treated the same. If you’ve got an adult child with a severe drug problem for example, inheriting a fairly large sum of money could be the death of them. Or if you have a child who has been cut off (e.g. they’re in prison for murder and you’ve chosen to go no contact as a result), then that isn’t an unfair decision in my opinion.

If everything’s “normal” yes ideally it should be equal, but it’s always as cut and dry as that, there’s a grey area in between that some families will have to consider.

There are plenty of reasons why someone would want to leave more to their grandchildren than their children.

Many invest to secure the future of the 3rd generation, because 2nd generation tends to waste it.
I wonder, once the inheritance is decided, then more grandchildren are born?

It depends whether you class leaving money to the grandchildren as treating the adult children differently. For example, should the grandchildren's inheritance come out of their parent's share, so the child without children gets the same as the other child plus their children combined. There are plenty of reasons why someone would want to leave more to their grandchildren than their children.

I disagree. Same money to each child and separate to grandchildren is fair to me. The grandchildren are people in their own right, the parent with more children gets no more than the other.

Parents should never promise anything regarding the inheritance. Lots of things can change in meantime.

I think that all children should be treated the same and while you are alive. You never know if all your money will be swallowed up in care in your last years. You might not be able to even things up with an inheritance.

The average period between the last will and death is normally about 6 years, sometimes shorter if there is a sudden illness/diagnosis that focuses the mind.

I would like update from OP in other thread, in about 6months time, saying what she did in the end, what decisions or actions.

I don't see many true 'fair' inheritance divisions in real life. You can try, should try, but I don't find it happens often.

I agree with you. 👏👏👏

@CoastalCalm And I bet your Mother was hurt by you questioning her on what was in her will. If you were my daughter I would cut you out just for that alone.

I think that all children should be treated the same and while you are alive. You never know if all your money will be swallowed up in care in your last years. You might not be able to even things up with an inheritance.
Of course it is perfectly OK to leave money to grandchildren in their own right and our children would welcome this but again this should be done equally.
If there is any money left when we die we hope our children and grandchildren would benefit from it. Even if one of them stopped talking to us it would still be even.