Inheritance - has something shifted?

OP’s original post was about only the blood line inheriting. This has since expanded in subsequent posts to also include beef that she isn’t a trustee.

If the whole estate is going into a discretionary trust (which it sounds like), they are likely already appointing their 3 DC as trustees which is enough. The maximum number of trustees you can have is 4 in any event, so if they had appointed OP they would have had to exclude their other SIL and DIL as trustees, which would have been a contentious decision too. Better to treat all DIL/SIL the same.
And let’s not forget, trustees have a duty to make decisions taking into account the best interests of all the potential beneficiaries. If Uncle and Aunt are favouring their own children unreasonably they are in breach of trust and the OPs children can take action against them - or their mother on their behalf.
I’m not saying that going down the trust route is a good idea; they certainly have their place especially for vulnerable beneficiaries but IME they tend to be pushed by dodgy estate planning companies on Facebook to people that don’t really need them . But the merits of a trust aside, appointing your 3 DC as trustees would be a pretty common approach.

This is perfectly normal. A trust has many advantages. EG. Their home can't be taken to pay for a care home if needed. It ring fences their money for their own family members but if left to your DH ,you surely will benefit. Everyone I know leaves their money to their blood family,if they have any. Highly unusual to leave it to a DIL. We have made a trust in favour of our daughters and grandkids. But obviously as they have good marriages ,the money will go into fa.ily coffers. But it is a protection in case of divorce.
Our solicitor advised it.
Sorry but I think you are being mercenary.

My parents are updating their wills now, following the sudden death of my DB. DB's share of their estate will now pass to their grandchildren, my DNeice and DNephew. My SIL will act as trustee until they reach the ages of 25. My DPs would never have made ME (the 'blood relative') the trustee of this inheritance. It would be a slap in the face to my bereaved SIL, and completely unnecessary. SIL is best placed to determine what is best for DNs.

Why are we taking this personally. You are as one as you are married you will get it anyway

The number of people not actually reading the thread and understanding what Op is saying is baffling.

ILs have determined that she is not a suitable person to make the best decisions for her children if her DH dies because she is not “blood”. She is not asking for money for her. If DH is alive he can withdraw from the trust and Ops nuclear family will benefit; all very straight forward. If he passes away, her children’s inheritance is at the mercy of aunt and uncle who are also entitled to draw money from the same trust so are incentivised to act in their own interests at the expense of Op’s children.

Apparently because Op isn’t a blood relative of the ILs it isn’t appropriate to defend the rights of her own children’s inheritance. If she was a trustee on behalf of her children, she’d have to spend the money on her children. She couldn’t just blow it on herself or take it into a new marriage. It’s still her DCs as the blood relatives that would benefit. She could even be a joint trustee with DHs siblings so they retained a degree of control, but she has been entirely cut out of something which is intended to support her children, and just has to hope that BiL and SiL would be fair and reasonable.

After years of dedication to the family dynamic, with no failings out or backstory (like Op is actually a thief) of course Op is confused and hurt by this.

Our kids have been with their partners for quite a while, but our wills don't mention those partners. I don't think that's unusual or something recent. It assumes that when we're no longer around and the kids inherit their partners will benefit along with their spouses. If the partnership fails and they separate then I'd prefer my kids kept the money rather than partner. I think most people agree, don't they?

"What happens to the money you inherit"
Presumptuous. Not everyone gets to inherit money.

Do recent posters think that this phrase in the OP:
They've just redone their wills and gone down a Complicated trust route, so that only 'blood' relatives benefit.
refers to a straightforward, leave inheritance to your dc set up? They have obviously arranged something that means if the son dies before the parents, the money goes to the gcs, but can't be administered by the mother, their dil. As she isn't a blood relative.

Relatives yes. Some are relatives by blood and some by marriage.

Completely normal in my view. My husband and I (in our 50's) have set up our wills to make sure it goes down the bloodline. The half left to the widowed/widowered partner is held in trust until they in turn pass away,then that half goes to the children too. That way if there's a remarriage of the bereaved partner at some point,the half that belonged to the first deceased partner doesn't get diluted into a second marriage beneficiary. If your PIL leave it all to your DH, you'll benefit via him surely anyway (easier life,pay off more outgoings etc.)

I don't think this indicates any change. It's entirely usual for parents to leave their money directly to their own DC, in the expectation that DIL benefits from it as family money in any case. It would be odd/unusual to leave anything to DiL imo.

What a weird money-grabbing take OP. They’ve probably picked up on the fact that you’re helping out because you think there’s something in it for you.
It’s common for people to leave their estates to their bloodline and far less common to include children’s spouses.

When we did our wills we used a solicitor and they sent questions on what is to happen in all sorts of ‘what if’ scenarios. Could this be something your PIL have done?

I don’t expect to inherit from dhs parents but I would be hurt if they put a lot of conditions and trusts in place to ensure I couldn’t get my hands on any of dhs share. It would say to me they don’t trust me to look after our DCs interests first if anything happened to DH. After 20 years I would expect more trust from them.

That is exactly wrong; the entire point of a trust is it’s not your dhs money, he’s only a benificiary. If he dies (after mil) , there’s no beneficiary and you have no access to what was left to him. Neither of you have any legal right to include the trust assets in a divorce- a trust keeps your grubby fingers away from his family money permanently, including if you divorce or after hes dead. That’s the whole point.

Good points! I'd be worried about dodgy advice too. I think trusts are mostly used to leave money to minors. They really don't work for care home fees unless the settlor starts paying rent on their own home. Here are my thoughts
Your crap DH is probably the root of the problems and your resentment.
In a husband and wife will It's pretty usual to leave everything to each other and if you die within a month of the other person, to your children. People sometimes leave a specific sum to their sons/ daughters in law as a mark of affection. Depending on the size of the estate it could be anything from £200 to £20,000. It's a token. It's very unusual to treatment in laws as on the same footing as the actual children. Re the grandchildren it varies depending on what people are trying to achieve. In your shoes I'd have a gentle chat with them as you seem to get on and make sure they've actually done what they intended. As a side issue I hhink I'd be having a looong look at my crap DH.

I don’t really see what the big deal is. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I’m not named in anything in MIL’s will. I doubt our children are either. If Dh were to die before MIL, I don’t know what would happen, but I wouldn’t expect that inheritance to come to me. Dh definitely isn’t named in my mum’s will. I’m not even sure I am these days tbf! 😂 Any inheritance that Dh and I would receive would be spent as a family.

After someone’s dead, they can’t really stipulate how you spend your money. A trust may be able to make decisions about what money is released for what purpose (paying a mortgage), but 10 years down the line, if you divorce, you and your (ex)Dh can divide your assets however you wish.

Time to let their “family” do all the heavy lifting from now on.

Your care was nothing to do with money but THEY have changed that now, by going out of their way to ensure you’re not regarded as family / good enough for them.
It’s a tricky one though as reacting to this will be interpreted by many as you making it about money 🤷🏼‍♀️
I was going to say you can’t win sometimes. However, if you’re married then it comes to you as well potentially.

They could just be trying to protect their blood family in case of separation/not divorced yet situations. Perhaps someone the know had this experience and it made them think they were doing the right thing? I’ve certainly read various pots on MN about inheritance when close to divorcing..

I always remember when doing accounting exams, we were told that inheritance taxes are predominantly paid by the middle class, very little rich or poor pay them. The middle class/upper middle class don't understand trusts enough to use them or don't think they are rich enough that they can, which nets the government huge amounts of money. Maybe your in laws having received several inheritances have realised this and thought that they will save/make you some money. It is entirely possible I'm sure that the structuring of this was done without malice, likely also though without thinking of feelings for anyone except their children. If I had to create trusts for my children, I wouldn't have a partner in law be a trustee. I am sure that the lawyer setting up the trust has advised them against having anyone except a blood relative as a trustee in case of divorce or other complications. Inheritances always seem to upset someone, though your upset seems to come from a reasonable place. Can see both sides though.

You’ve misunderstood completely

It’s the change of the will intentionally protecting the money from the OP rather than expecting something.

the OP thinks of them as family. She looks after them and plans their future old age for them yet they have recently chosen to change their will in a manner than makes it clear they don’t value her and think of her as family the way she has them

Their money their choice not sure why you as a daughter in law would benefit over their son !!

You should never do anything for elderly relatives with the thought you will inherit or make the decisions- it is very easy to make sure someone is cut out, you can spend a lifetime helping relatives and still finish up with nothing- so assume you will get nothing and only do as much as is commensurate with that, otherwise you will finish up bitter.
In fairness most people would be uncomfortable for a non-blood relation to make decisions like which care home they go to, and that is understandable.

I meant that if the Son or Daughter inherits and then dies, their surviving spouse would be likely to inherit.