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

I always think it’s a mistake to give some children some money early, and say it’ll be deducted from their share of the inheritance. How do you know there’ll be an inheritance? I think we should all work on the theory that every penny we have will be taken up by care home fees, and if there is money left over after we die, then that’s a bonus. You should offer your third child the money now, or put it aside in an account for them.

But the children would inherit from their parents in that situation, not from the grandparent. The parent with one DC could be in rented accommodation and have spent the grandparent money of living costs while the parent of 5 has a large estate and so the 5 kids get more than their cousin.
Noone can ensure that everyone for generations to come will get an equal amount but if you plan to pass on your money in a way that could lead to resentment you should think through the repercussions for your children.
My grandfather left all his worldly goods to 2 of his 3 children. The two recipients decided to pass on the money to the next generation across all three families. The result slightly less than £200 for me and each of my siblings/cousins. We all went out for a party family meal and paid for our parents because none of us want anything to show for the old bastards money but we're happy to drink to his passing. But had the sums involved been life altering amounts his unfairness could easily have caused rifts (which I'm sure he would have loved).

Exactly.
My sil has no children- we have 4.
Mil and fil split their money between their children
So it should be.
I'd be mortified if our family got more because sil didn't have a family.
Sil has split her money between her nieces and nephews- so they will get it eventually.

And what if the grandchildren could be adults? Let their parents to gift them each 50k from their own inheritance. It would have been fair only if both siblings would have had same amount of children. But that's rarely the case.

Both my sibling and I have 2 DC and my DM told me years ago that I'm an executor but will not be left anything.
I have a DH and both work so she feels we don't need it.

I myself will talk about it with my DC as money is a subject we've always talked about, although not to the extent where I know what each earns as I wouldn't ask.

At the moment one DC has one child if it were my choice I'd say 50/50, if for any reason the one with a DC asked me to do, for instance, 50/40/10, them getting the 40% because they'd like me to leave something to DGC I'd do so.

Iike I said, it's all very well to take a strong position now when everyone is young and all is fine and dandy but if you become widowed and infirm and one of your children gives up work to looks after you and one of them fucks off on a never ending holiday to avoid even visiting you, you may take a different view.

My aunt did a weird thing, or it seemed bizarre to me.

She had two children, one of whom had three children, the other two.

The money was split in half, so half went to each side. However, she split the money equally on each side between child and grandchildren.

So one of the siblings had to share their money with three children and the sum was split four ways, while the other only had to share with their two children. So one child, who’d had more children and had struggled more, got less than the other child.

Always seemed a bit unfair to me. I can see if both children had got the entire inheritance, half and half, the grandchildren would eventually have likely got less on the side with three children, but I can’t imagine effectively penalising one of my children for having had more children.

To me, it’s better to treat both your children equally and the easiest way to do that is to give them half the money, then leave it up to them whether they share it with the grandchildren. Occasionally there may be reason to do something different, such as if one child is incapable of caring for themselves, for example.

I can also see that giving grandchildren something to get them started is a nice gesture, but I feel if you can afford to do it before you die, so setting up a trust or whatever, that’s probably better as then, it isn’t part of the estate. If there’s one thing I don’t want, it’s to create ill-feeling between my children when Igo.

Definitely the same. But it seems fine to leave a set amount to each grand child.

No, I think you should treat all DC the same.

Be careful because whatever you give now for a deposit will be worth a lot more in the future. Eg £25k now will be worth £50k in time. You need to take advice about how to factor that in.

No - definitely not. It has the potential to cause a great deal of hurt and fracture in the family, even if it remains hidden (the hurt) - regardless of financial status.

I think all AC should be treated the same, with perhaps a proportionately small sum going to GC first e.g. 1% to each grandchild and rest split equally between AC.

If it can be afforded, any financial levelling is best done before death e.g. If you give child A £10K for a wedding put £10K in account/ISA (at the same time) ready for child B when they get married. If by age 40 you have children who haven't needed money for house deposits/wedding then give it to them then. Be very open/transparent about this with all children that this is the process. I don't think it is great to give child A £10K in 2003 for a wedding and then say in your will that child B (unmarried) is to get £10K more when you die (...in 2041!).

Potentially yes but it's all fact dependent and what position is approaching death and the erelationships with the children.

Relaations with the children - it doesn't follow that all children are 'equal' in the eyes of the parents or will have good/loving relationships. I don't think Lizzie Borden's parents would be rushing to give her a chunky inheritance if they had survived. JOking but you take the point. It does happen that some children are absolutely abusive to their parents - and that can happen whether they have children or are childless.

Age of the grandchild and relations with grandchildren - if the grandchildren are adults, grandparent may by that point have independent relationships with them and better relttions with some rather than others and want to give one or more different sums. They may 'factor' that in to what they leave to their own children vs grandchildren. If grandchildren are v. young, more likely to leave money to parents for them to sort out.

Amount of money involved, wealth of relative parties - if parent has an average amount and one of the children is Bill Gates, may as well leave it all to the poverty stricken other child. If very wealthy, may be tax advantages in leaving the share to their child who has children all to the grandchildren (taxed once rather than taxed twice on death of their own child).

Care - childless adult child is far more likely to be heavily involved in care - sometimes giving up income and job and whole life to care for infirm parents. They will take a heavy financial hit without expectation if they aren't working or working reduced hours usually so it's not uncommon for a parent in that situation to address that 'loss' they have 'caused' (inverted commas as it's not their fault) to the carer sibling in inheritance - sort of to 'do right' by the one that has looked after them.

Single adult child (no family of their own) is potentially (subject to their own income/financial status) in old age/future than the one with children/family who will have an extended family most likely to offer help and support. Parent may want to leave a bit more to the single one to give them a bit more old age secuirty.

Lots of variables so I'd say it depends but there could be lots of reasons why it is fairer to not divide 50/50.

There are no hard and fast rules about this. People can decide to do whatever they like with their money.

We have this situation. I have two kinds, my sister has none (by choice).

We are treated exactly the same in my parents will.

But they have decided to also leave £10k each, to each of my children.

My sister is unhappy about this: she sees it as me ‘getting’ €20k more than her. I kind saw her point when the children were young, but as they are now 17 and 14 I think they will be adults in their own right by the time my parents pop their clogs.

it’s up to my parents who they leave their assets to.

I think the sum left to the children should be equal. So if everything is left to them, 50-50.

But I don't think it's unfair to directly leave inheritances to the grandchildren themselves. So if say two grandkids were each left 10%, the remaining 80% should be split evenly between the children.

My gran split her will evenly between us all eg my aunt, cousin, my mum, my sibling and I.

we all got exactly the same amount.

I think it's fine to reduce the amount children get in order to leave something to grandchildren - if the parents had more children, the amount left to each child would also reduce. I don't have grandchildren yet but IME grandparents care just as much for grandchildren as they do for their children, and it's fair to recognise them in their own right.

I do think (except in the case of disability) each child should receive the same amount, and each grandchild should receive the same amount. No one should be penalised or benefitted for their decision to have children, or for the number of siblings they have.

My sister has 4 kids and I have 2. I genuinely wouldn’t care if my parents split their estate 6 ways between the grandkids. If I had a sibling who didn’t have kids I’d maybe expect them to be dealt in amongst the grandkids…. Possibly so each descendant regardless of generation gets equal… in this case 3 kids + 6 grandkids so everyone gets one ninth. Even tho that would mean my sisters side of the family get four ninths

They should be treated the same and left to decide what they do with it irt any DC's they have. To expect more just because a person has DC of their own is just grabby IMO.

We’ll split it equally.

We’re raising our children to be responsible
for their own choices and wear the cost of them. Any money from us is a bonus equally shared, not something to depend on. I hope we haven’t raised them to take and take and take to support their own life choices as happened in the other thread.

If a person decides to give some money to grandchildren so their children get equal amounts but less, than that's just how it is too.

It's up to the person writing the will if they wish to leave money to grandchildren (or great grandchildren) they know while they are alive. I think children should generally be treated the same as each other, and grandchildren the same as other grandchildren. Unless circumstances mean a person needs the money more, like disability. I don't think giving money to grandchildren is unfair to children. It's up to the person to decide though.

My Granny will was split fairly between her children - not all are in the same financial position, one more wealthy than the others. Some paid their mortgages off some haven’t , some have more children one has none. Regardless it’s split fairly.

My cousin who is very close to Gran, she is the only Grandchild mentioned in the will, she is receiving an amount and some jewellery. Not a single one of the other grandchildren would mind - she deserves it. They have a lovely bond not driven by money.

in the previous thread, the parent first gave the childless child a deposit for a house, so define "destitute"...and the parent gave money to grand-children, not the sibling.

Assets then went away in care home and unpaid loan.

It was not about unfair inheritance at all but it really triggers some posters, kids sent to private school, the horror.

I this the continuation of the previous thread? Childless child left destitute while the other profited greatly by an early inheritance towards her children's private schooling? That father originally wanted the childless daughter to inherit about the equal amount.