Different Dads Different Prospects

Thank you I can read and have basic comprehension skills.

I completely stand by my comment.

I think it’s odd that so many people prioritise equality over equity. I’d be fascinated to know where everyone commenting is from because in my country it would be quite normal (and happily accepted by the younger sibling) for the inheritance to be adjusted so that both siblings are taken care of.

The lesson here is to not make assumptions about inheritance. Which is an MN trope for a reason!

It would've been wrong of OP to anticipate what DH was getting even if the ILs hadn't made it obvious they don't actually see DS1 in the same way as DS2. The fact that they've done stuff like not give birthday presents (and I suspect most people would stick a few quid in a card in this situation) means it was naive too. You just can't assume other people's money is going to come to you.

Well the whole point of the post is she's upset that the step dad's family is providing for the younger son and not the older one. If she can support the older one perfectly well without the step dad then what's the issue?

Thankfully, they can decide for themselves what is better when it comes to their own money. The point of the money for them is using it to help secure the future of their descendants, obviously. That this has created angst in people that erroneously considered themselves entitled to it is neither their fault nor their problem. As it so happens they are sharing it, just not in the way OP thought they would. Oh well.

No one is being unfair to him. He’s not entitled to the same from people that aren’t his paternal family. They aren’t being treated the same because they are not the same. This judgement would apply to a father expecting this from the stepmother’s family, so I’m not sure why you think this is in any way sexist either.

Op clearly did think she could provide for him using her in-laws money. Tbh, I suspect she’s never liked her in laws, but having secured an agreement with her husband to split their asses 50/50 (a mutual will?), she’s been playing the long game with them believing that she’d ‘win’ in the end. This is despite the fact that her family was the only one that wasn’t given a deposit for a house, which was a warning she would have been wise to heed then.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if her husband has been kept far more informed by his parents and/or been an active participant in their financial planning, than she is aware of.

It’s always easy to share and spend someone else’s money.

Like hell would I just hand over some 200k to a step grandchild with their own even partly involved father and grandparents.

Just as I’d never expect to get a house just because my half sibling did from their family. That’s greedy and grabby. Not nice traits either.

It's all very sad. Money is better when it's shared. Sad also, and sexist, how the elder son is said by some posters to have been "taken on" by the step dad, as if the mum can't provide for him too, and he's a burden. Children are an asset to a family. Or at least they are in mine. What is the point in being well off if it causes this much angst. It's not entitlement, to feel hurt by unfairness.

OP’s oldest is not their grandchild (and has never been treated as if he is) regardless of how long he’s been in their lives, and it truly is as simple as that. If the oldest son resents the youngest for benefiting from family they don’t share, that’s on him.

This.

Just because the OP's DH has taken on her elder son, doesn't mean his parents have to.

As I keep wondering, where are the elder son's maternal grandparents in all this? The OP seems overly invested in the prospect of money from her PiLs, frankly.

I'd start investing a few hundred each month for your eldest son. A bit of compound interest would hopefully add up over the years, which would help even things out a little.

This is very much standard in families with assets. Trusts are routinely utilized to prevent those assets leaving the family via remarriage, divorce, changing of wills*, or even sharing.

A wealthy person ‘could’ do differently, but that doesn’t mean they should have to, or have a duty to. It’s massively entitled to expect that. OP’s oldest is not their grandchild (and has never been treated as if he is) regardless of how long he’s been in their lives, and it truly is as simple as that. If the oldest son resents the youngest for benefiting from family they don’t share, that’s on him.

*Incidentally, mirror wills can be changed in secret, but mutual wills cannot.

Yes. I have two sons and if one of them acquired a young stepchild I can't imagine anything other than treating them as a grandchild, especially if they are growing up seeing my son as 'Dad'. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to surely?

In fairness, these ones seem to be giving a lot of it away while they're still alive. Personally I wouldn't be giving a financial gift that size to someone who's just blown out 18 candles on a cake, even if they did seem pretty sensible. But I suppose it's also a trade off, in that if you want to enjoy seeing loved ones benefit from your assets before you die, doing it sooner maximises that time. Tomorrow isn't promised.

I really don't understand why people try so hard to control what happens to their money after they die, to the extent that they will knowingly cause a rift between siblings forever.
Whoever they leave it to could share it with the disinherited, so called mirror wills can be changed at any time without informing anyone, widow(er)s can remarry, kids/grandkids can marry and divorce etc. Plus all the judgement heaped on people who have non nuclear families is awful. How would you want to be remembered really? A wealthy person who could help all their grandkids (long standing step kids included) but chooses not to, is being mean. The "blood" grandkids haven't earned it any more than the stepkids have.

*Just adopted?
What if things didn't work out and OP's DH met and married someone else who also has kids, are they meant to adopt them too....

He has a biological father, OP should be on his case if she feels DS is disadvantaged, but not much hope as he's not even on the scene.

His own dad can't provide for him, but step grandparents are expected to?

I do, as do most people. The better question would be 'who doesn't think like that'?

You can’t be serious. Who thinks like that?!

Good point however, short of an unexpected death, the chances are that my inlaws will die before we do. That is food for thought though so I will look in to.putting some sort of clause in my will.

Op picked two men with families clearly in different tax brackets. She was just banking on her dh getting the lot not them seeing the writing on the walls and skipping the dh.

Yes, tbh it does look like ILs picked up on that and weren't happy about it.

I think YANBU at all .Sadly this seems unfair because it is! I would say that if you possibly can ,to get driving lessons for the older one.I think you would not be unreasonable to maybe leave him more in your will too.Although to speak to DH about it as well.

You keep mentioning all the things which your eldest doesn’t have or will miss out on from DH’s family, but what have you done to nurture relationships with DS paternal family? Does he see his GP/aunts/uncles/cousins? Just because his DF is a bit of a waster, doesn’t mean you couldn’t or can’t make sure he maintains and develops proper relationships with his blood relatives.

Your DH is nice to treat both children equally; what his DP do is entirely up to them.

Can you 100% guarantee that your youngest will inherit what you currently think he will? Things change. People die and spouses remarry. People need care. People live long lives, especially the wealthy.

I have a similar situation in that my youngest child's family are wealthy and so he will inherit a substantial amount. My older child wont so when it comes to our inheritance ie myself and non biological father of the eldest, we have agreed that the split will be 75% to eldest and 25% to youngest. My youngest, now 30 yrs old, is in full agreement with this and has even suggested that we leave 100% to our eldest. For me equality isn't about a 50 50 split but more about redressing an imbalance.

I do think there’s something in this!

Just wanted to add to what everyone has said that you shouldn’t change your wills - that would be favouritism and not fair - but you should do what you can to support the eldest to get back on his feet at the moment.

So that’s supporting him to get back into work or study, letting him live with you to save for a deposit once he’s in work, and perhaps getting together some savings for him from your personal “spends” if you think the monetary disadvantage that needs addressing.

There’s not much you can do! And making sure the youngest knows he’s been lucky and to “wear it lightly” / not crow about it.

What my DH and his family provided my older DD who was not related to them with was love. This is something my DD was never really shown by her father and she never even met any of his family.

Is it OK in your narrow world view for love and affection to be shown to non blood "family members"?

This is how my late MIL regarded my older DD who was not her biological grandchild but who came into her life when she was 2. She was a lovely woman who treated my 2 DDs exactly the same. My older DD's actual paternal grandmother on the other hand, couldn't even be bothered to ever meet her despite her being her only grandchild!

Blood ties can be seriously overrated.