Help me be fair to my children

Nobody seems to have taken into account here that by the time son matures the £30k will probably nearly be £40k because of interest.

2 of my dc received a small compensation from a car accident, it went from £1200 to £2000 in 6 years.

My poor youngest child missed out on child trust funds and wasn’t in the car during the accident so he’s the only one of the 4 not getting anything at 18. So we have spoken to our older children at length about making this fair for him and he will probably get 2 grand just so it’s even. No we didn’t start anything for him as a baby-money was too tight.

Life isn't fair. Much as everyone wants to try to have their kids treated equally you can't make it happen. And it's better to educate them in that rather than try to pretend otherwise.

What you can do is confirm to them that although life doesn't treat them equally, you will. So they will all get the same treatment from you no matter what.

But if one turns out to be super brainy and earns a fortune, or another marries a billionaire, or another wins the lottery, that is not something you can control or compensate for. So best not to try to pretend that you can.

This sums it up well. I would give to them equally. If your husband won't bend, you could give him some but less.

Interesting situation. As there is no long term problem with the injury Id prioritize the other kids savings accounts.

I am certainly of the opinion that parents should provide support to their children into adulthood, entirely dependent on what they can actually reasonably afford to give. I think it’s extremely wrong to force your children into independence, financial or otherwise, at eighteen. That doesn’t mean I think you shouldn’t have as many children as you want and can provide for in childhood because there’s some arbitrary amount of cash you need to be able to afford to give to each child - just that it’s wrong to watch your children struggle when you have more than enough to help them in the bank.

I think it’s great that you’re putting away money for your children when they’re young and allowing those pots potentially decades to grow depending on what they choose to use the money for - and I also think you’re doing better than most people. One of the biggest ways I intend on giving my children a leg up is to raise them knowing that my house is their home for as long as they would benefit from being here, and that there’s no need to rush into renting just because they have a job. If I only end up having one child I would be completely happy for them to raise their own family in my house as well.

You son had an actual injury which was shit for him which is why he got the money.

If you stop putting in for him then he hasn't had any compensation has he? He has just subsidised topping up his siblings pots.

You need to keep the compensation totally separate to anything you are saving for them

It would be the same if you had premium bonds for them and one won more than the other, and what if one buys or is given a scratchcard/lottery ticket on their 18th birthday and wins a big sum? They need to learn that, as parents, you treat them fairly but that life overall isn't always fair!

On a more serious note, just because your child isn't suffering from the effects of their injury now - they could face consequences later (e.g. broken bone more likely to lead to arthritis etc) so it might be that they get a financial boost when younger but are hit later when they have to reduce hours/stop working early due to complications

Continuing saving the same amount for both would mean they’re being treated equally by their parents.

The compensation he has received is entirely separate.

What if one of your other children won the lottery on their 18th birthday? Would you then take theirmoney back to share between the other children?

Keep doing what you have done.

This took a bit of an insane turn. I agree that the fair thing to do is to continue to contribute to all children equally, however it’s not some universal standard that you have to be able to afford to give all of your children big lump sums at 18 or you can’t afford to have them. Giving children a “proper start in life” kind of definitionally refers to the actual start of their lives, when they are actually children. If you can afford to give your children any amount as a lump sum you are doing more than a significant percentage of people. My husband’s family had a top 20% household income when growing up and he received no such lump sum (I’m not counting paying for driving lessons as he couldn’t have decided to use those funds towards anything else). My family probably had a bottom 5% household income and I also received no lump sum from my parents, though I have been very fortunate to receive £12,000 from my grandmother which paid for my whole house deposit this year. I hope to be able to do the same for my children when I have them, but I think it’s going a bit far to say or imply someone has had too many children because they can’t afford to fund their entire young adult lives.

It’s not the child who got compensations fault that his siblings will have less, he shouldn’t be penalised

Yeah this is a possibility too. Depends on personality I would never of done that but then again I was sensible even at 16 and still have good money management.

If your Son isn't left with a life long injury. I would save for the other children. It makes sense to do it that way.

30k is enough. Plus the child won't be losing out it just means things will balance out for the other kids.

My 2 children earn different amounts but I always give them the same if we have spare money

Presumably your DS has been awarded this money because his injury was considered to have caused him sufficient detriment he should be compensated. Your other DC have not suffered the detriment, so have nothing to be compensated for. The fair thing is to treat your DC equally ignoring the £30k, because that money is really nothing to do with anyone but your DS.
When your DC grow up, there will be all sorts of variables that will impact their financial position in relation to each other. Respective salaries, partners earnings etc. So they won't be equal anyway. You can only be equal in what you give.

Id be tempted to just pool all the savings your are making for dc in one pot rather than individual names accounts, then have that conversation when they are older and include them in it to see how'd they feel.

I’m with your husband, it seems fairer to me that they all end up with a similar set up fund rather than your son having thirty thousand pounds more than his siblings.
BUT… Also worth bearing in mind not everybody sees it like this. I have a friend whose mum passed away recently and the inheritance has caused major issues. My friend owns her house outright, has a well paying job, good pension plan ect, she also has one child.
Her brother also has one child, stuck in private rent, works but is on minimum wage. They are all in the same age bracket.
The mum left 80 thousand to each grandchild, 50 thousand to my friend and 200 thousand to my friends brother. I can understand why, he can now buy a small house, my friend lives in a house that’s worth well over a million. She is very bitter about this and has ruined there relationship, they were close before and I’m not sure they will ever speak again.

Compensation is separate. I would look at that as a direct payment to him. You’re just the middle man. It has nothing to do with you. If one of your other children had a lottery win or some other random windfall age 17 would you take money out their ISA to “even it up” ? No. You give them each the same and any other life events in their individual lives that may result in increased funds are irrelevant.

It's probably a conversation with the eldest when he's 17/18 - and if he wants to share his compensation with his siblings so they all have the same- in a few years you'll have a better sense of likely pathways etc and if the accident doesn't have any long term financial needs to consider rhe may be happy to split it three ways?

we did this with our kids trust fund isa things from the government - child 1s massively outperformed child 2s - because of where they ended up when the original company closed - we agreed to pool the funds and then split them equally between them as that seemed fair and tricky that one benefitted from a random allocation of funds over the other - once we got them back we then managed them more closely but it was over a year of trying to find details of the company that had taken them over -

You’ve both got the right intentions. I personally would give each the same amount. The compensation feels separate to me

Actually, I wouldn't be putting money into the DCs name at all. I'd be hanging on to it and then pass a sum over as and when they have a good use for it. Some 18yos would just blow the lot.