Page 2 | To think about evening things out between the kids

MyKindHiker · 2025-06-11T21:39:28+00:00

I have a bit of a dilemma. I have two sons, 7 and 9. The elder one last year was in a nasty accident (not his fault) and has received a substantial insurance payout as a result. He's all recovered now thank heavens. By law this goes into a trust fund until he's 18, by which point it will be a pretty big chunk of money. I was thinking about what this means for my younger son, and whether I should try to make provisions for him to match a similar amount for when he's 18, as it feels unfair one child having a head start over the other in terms of being able to put down a deposit on a house, or pay for university without taking out loans etc. I do put money into trust funds for both of them already, but if I wanted to 'top up' the younger son, I'd have to funnel all money into younger one's fund. If I got to the point where it was equalised I'd of course then continue to put anything extra equally for both. I'm not sure what is the right approach. Should I try and make sure their start in adult life is 'fair' or evened out, or would by elder son feel it was unfair his brother getting a handout from mum where he didn't, even if the amounts were the same. Genuinely on the fence about it. Would I be unreasonable to make extra provisions for the youngest?

Original poster

MyKindHiker · 12/06/2025 11:29

DontReplyIWillLie · 12/06/2025 11:24

I’m perfectly calm, thank you. And I’m not suggesting you’re planning on taking anything from your eldest. But you are talking about giving him less because he got the compensation. And I think it’s pretty rotten to tell a child that he can no longer have the money you would have saved for him because an insurance company covered that for you.

Show quote history

I don't think giving differently is the same as taking something away. But I'm not trying to defend one perspective or another - I've started this thread because I'm genuinely interested to hear others' views when I decide what to do.

OP posts:

Marley99 · 12/06/2025 11:29

I think the amount of money makes a bit of a difference here - how unequal would it be?

If you’re talking a few thousand that would reasonably pay for physio or something that crops up in the future it’s a bit different to one having enough money to buy a house cash and the other not having a deposit. If it was a massive amount of money, I think I’d try and save up extra for the other child.

CharlieCoCo · 12/06/2025 11:28

No. For all you know the one who wasn't injured might get a.higher paying job and end up with more money anyway. Treating them.equally doesn't mean they have the same money, it means having their needs met. He got money for an accident. If the sibling got money because the other had an accident, thay isn't equal anyway.

Original poster

MyKindHiker · 12/06/2025 11:26

Grammarninja · 12/06/2025 11:13

I'm sure it was because you pursued the payout that he now has it. You advocated for your child to have the best result so I see no harm in advocating for your second child to have his best result.
My parents always made us share everything and it has led to me and my siblings being generous people as adults who don't compare. When we got birthday or communion money we went out as a family and spent it equally amongst us. It was great as it meant we got stuff way more often and learned to enjoy being the one who was treating everyone.
If you raise your kids with these values, your son won't bat an eyelid at you trying to make things fair for his sibling.

We very very much want to embrace these values. As an adult I have an amazing relationship with my siblings and there is zero jealousy between us. BUT. My parents always gave to us based on need. So for example sister wanted some extra qualifications to get on the job ladder, parents paid it. I didn't need as went down a different path, they didn't give me an equal amount of money or anything but I know if I'd needed a hand at one point or another they'd have helped.

My husband and his sister always had 50/50 so when his parents helped him out with some money at one point when he was unemployed, they gave his sister the same amount just as a gesture even though she wasn't unemployed. They have a very bad relationship with a lot of jealousy though I have no idea if the money attitude is part of it or just a red herring.

OP posts:

DontReplyIWillLie · 12/06/2025 11:24

MyKindHiker · 12/06/2025 11:20

Calm down! I'm not thinking about taking anything from eldest. I'm thinking about whether the other child should go into adulthood with an equal pot and once pots were equalised would then give equally to them, equal in will etc etc.

Show quote history

I’m perfectly calm, thank you. And I’m not suggesting you’re planning on taking anything from your eldest. But you are talking about giving him less because he got the compensation. And I think it’s pretty rotten to tell a child that he can no longer have the money you would have saved for him because an insurance company covered that for you.

pimplebum · 12/06/2025 11:20

Does your eldest know about this money and how much ?

does your youngest ?

we put money into an isa for eldest child but had no money to do same for number 2

we haven’t told either and may share the pot at 18 or may give all to eldest as she has SEN and will have reduced earning capacity and may need it much more

id make it even myself

Original poster

MyKindHiker · 12/06/2025 11:20

DontReplyIWillLie · 12/06/2025 11:04

The reason for the financial thing would be that it feels harsh one would have a financial advantage the other didn't.

It would be harsh to give one child a financial advantage and not the other. You haven’t given your eldest son anything.

Oh god I don't want to think about that.

Well perhaps you should start before deciding he doesn’t really need anything from you because he has his compensation.

Calm down! I'm not thinking about taking anything from eldest. I'm thinking about whether the other child should go into adulthood with an equal pot and once pots were equalised would then give equally to them, equal in will etc etc.

OP posts:

Grammarninja · 12/06/2025 11:13

I'm sure it was because you pursued the payout that he now has it. You advocated for your child to have the best result so I see no harm in advocating for your second child to have his best result.
My parents always made us share everything and it has led to me and my siblings being generous people as adults who don't compare. When we got birthday or communion money we went out as a family and spent it equally amongst us. It was great as it meant we got stuff way more often and learned to enjoy being the one who was treating everyone.
If you raise your kids with these values, your son won't bat an eyelid at you trying to make things fair for his sibling.

Cillaere · 12/06/2025 11:10

I would talk to the boys. Explain everything just as you have here, OP. See what they want to do, you might be surprised. So long as it is transparent, I think the paying into one account more than the other may work.

So much bad feeling is caused when parents present money decisions to their children as a fait accompli, without involving the children.

CrispEater2000 · 12/06/2025 11:04

I would probably put money aside and assess the situation when the time comes.

You can't help how they'd feel and that depends on personalities. I know I'd be happy to have had the financial boost, regardless of a sibling receiving similar from parentd, but if it was the other way round I'm pretty sure my sibling would resent the fact his money came from a payout and mine came from parents.

DontReplyIWillLie · 12/06/2025 11:04

The reason for the financial thing would be that it feels harsh one would have a financial advantage the other didn't.

It would be harsh to give one child a financial advantage and not the other. You haven’t given your eldest son anything.

Oh god I don't want to think about that.

Well perhaps you should start before deciding he doesn’t really need anything from you because he has his compensation.

ShuffleHopStepForgetStep · 12/06/2025 11:03

I can see the arguement both ways and I see why you are thinking about it. But on balance, I would not try to equalise this.

I think I would look to retain control of a reasonable portion of your savings so you can make judgement calls for both boys as they grown up and go through life, maybe one will need help with a deposit/one is on a low wage and needs a car/counselling for either of them etc.

However, imagine explaining your thought process to two adults. It will either be "we treated you equally with these savings, but made sure we were in a position to help either of you based on need". Or - "We saved unequally for you to match the payment DC1 received for his traumatic injury for DC2.". I think option one would be much easier to justify to most people.

Original poster

MyKindHiker · 12/06/2025 11:02

BastardesEverywhere · 12/06/2025 08:35

if one had an inheritance or won the lottery or just had a better paid job. I can’t fix that. So if i wouldn’t try to even out a windfall, why would i try and even out a compensation payout

I think you're talking about very different things here though. I also think there's a very clear distinction between 'child' and 'adult'.

Once they're both adults - if one has a huge bonus, if their spouse has a large inheritance they share, if they have a lottery win - would you try and even it out? Of course not. As adults, that's just life.

As a child though...personally I think that as far as possible we be trying to get them to adulthood with as equal a start as possible, where possible. They'd not be doing the lottery anyway...but if great Aunt Mabel left £10k to one dc and £0 to the other as a child then YES I would 'even it out'. Hopefully through the executor but if not then I'd save the equivalent for the other dc.

As long as the compensation wasn't intended to cover life long therapy or physio or reduced earning capacity or whatever - as long as dc1 was COMPLETELY recovered - then yes, I'd funnel all our savings until dc2 had the same. So that they went into the adult world with equal starts financially wise.

Very fair point.

OP posts:

DontReplyIWillLie · 12/06/2025 11:01

I would honestly never forgive my parents in your eldest’s shoes. What you’d essentially be saying to him is, “Well yes darling, I know you had a traumatic accident and lost four months of your childhood, but what about your brother?” It would make it pretty clear to me who the golden child in the family was.

This could cause major resentment between your children too. It’s not your younger son’s decision, but he might face consequences from your choice too. Sure, he starts out in life with more money, but he does so knowing his older brother resents him because he essentially got it just for existing.

You’re worrying that it isn’t “fair” for your younger son not to have the same financial start in life, but you don’t seem worried that Son 1 might think it more than a little unfair that Son 2 is effectively benefiting from HIS accident and trauma.

WhereHasMyPlanetGone · 12/06/2025 10:59

The financial advantage is directly related to the harm he suffered.

Original poster

MyKindHiker · 12/06/2025 10:57

stayathomegardener · 12/06/2025 09:54

Yes to PTSD or arthritis years later linked to the injury.

My dh who ‘completely’ healed from his childhood injury gets flares linked to it now he is in his late 60’s.

Show quote history

Oh god I don't want to think about that.

OP posts:

Original poster

MyKindHiker · 12/06/2025 10:56

Codlingmoths · 12/06/2025 10:53

Come on op. I can generally see where you are coming from but don’t think you should equalise it. Little brother doesn’t wish it was him. And you saying there were months where a healthy little boy could swim and ride but his brother couldn’t come with him due to severe injury is a not a reason to work harder to compensate the healthy one.

Show quote history

I was responding to a question as to whether it was hard for my youngest. It was. That's not in my opinion a reason for the financial thing. The reason for the financial thing would be that it feels harsh one would have a financial advantage the other didn't. But I see the arguments both ways. Hence the thread!

OP posts:

Codlingmoths · 12/06/2025 10:53

MyKindHiker · 12/06/2025 07:55

Sure it was. Dad and I were living in hospital with eldest for ages taking shifts. No one died but obviously he went from having a happy family mum dad brother to having either a mum or a dad, a parade of aunties and babysitters and no brother around. And then months of recovery where they couldn’t play or go swimming or on their bikes (together at least).

Show quote history

Come on op. I can generally see where you are coming from but don’t think you should equalise it. Little brother doesn’t wish it was him. And you saying there were months where a healthy little boy could swim and ride but his brother couldn’t come with him due to severe injury is a not a reason to work harder to compensate the healthy one.

Eldermileniummam · 12/06/2025 10:47

WitcheryDivine · 12/06/2025 10:24

I’m so intrigued where this ends though, if one of your children had been kidnapped and received compensation for that would you feel it should be shared with his brother? Or a different scenario, if he was a child model who earned a decent amount of money should half of that go to his brother?

I think the idea of these boys getting to adulthood and elder one getting £x for his injury and the younger getting £x from his parents just because they love him - it doesn’t sit right with me at all. I think while it may seem “unfair” the fairest way is always to treat your children the same in terms of what you can do for them.

I agree with you

Eldermileniummam · 12/06/2025 10:46

I don't think it should be evened out. Your son must have had an unpleasant accident and this is compensation for that. If you want to put slightly extra in the other's account then do but I don't think you should be giving them both the same.

WitcheryDivine · 12/06/2025 10:24

I’m so intrigued where this ends though, if one of your children had been kidnapped and received compensation for that would you feel it should be shared with his brother? Or a different scenario, if he was a child model who earned a decent amount of money should half of that go to his brother?

I think the idea of these boys getting to adulthood and elder one getting £x for his injury and the younger getting £x from his parents just because they love him - it doesn’t sit right with me at all. I think while it may seem “unfair” the fairest way is always to treat your children the same in terms of what you can do for them.

AirborneElephant · 12/06/2025 10:08

If the child who had the accident really is fully recovered with no long term impact then I’d try to even it out a bit. Not totally, but so that they are not in completely different places as they start adult life.

Icedcaramelfrappe · 12/06/2025 10:05

This is actually really interesting, I will ask my older DCs when they get in later and see what they would have liked

NeedthatFridayfeeling · 12/06/2025 10:01

I wouldn't stop adding to the eldest's though, he didn't ask for the accident to happen.

IHateWasps · 12/06/2025 10:01

You can’t even it out unless you’re going to break your other son’s leg/arm or mimic whatever injury he suffered. The compensation was given to him for a reason, for an adverse experience.It’s nothing like winning the lottery. It’s to make up for a loss in some way, a loss, a harm and/or trauma that was caused. It’s far from good fortune. Your other son has(thankfully) not suffered the same so why should he receive money? And you don’t know how it may affect him in the future. Speaking as someone who suffered an accident which I received compensation for while still technically a child and who still has problems over 20 years later.