Should inheritance always be split equally amount children?

I think it should be in conversation with them if it isn’t going to be equal. Everyone should be happy with whatever the arrangement is so that you don’t just dump a lifetime of baggage on your children once you’re gone.

For example, my mum and stepdad have done their will (last I heard, because I’m executor) so that it’s 70% to me, 15% each to my two stepsisters. We are all NC with them. I am by far the most financially secure. But of the 3 of us, even though they have no relationship with any of us, they hate me less than the others.

I think it’s a nasty spiteful thing to do. I don’t actually know what will happen in the end. They may cut us all off. I certainly don’t really want any inheritance. I doubt the others do either. It leaves me in a tricky situation though having to fulfil their wishes which benefit me, but are just mean.

Equally unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. For example, a friend of mine was one of four brothers. He lived nearest his Mum, saw her a lot, and was a successful barrister. When she was 80 she was run over by a drugged up driver. Horrendous injuries. She eventually went home and my friend cared for her. As her care needs got greater - incontinence, unable to walk etc, he gave up work to look after her. She lasted another 10 years. His siblings would visit but never did respite care (2 doctors). He even took his Mum across Europe by train for the wedding of one of her grandchildren. All this was massively at expense of his own mental health.

when she died, she left her flat plus a significant amount of £ to my friend, plus another very large amount to be divided between them all. I always felt this was her way of compensating him for loss of career and home. One of the others was so cross he wouldn’t go to her funerals. Then he got the others to start complaining to my friend who at that point was in bits at death of his Mum. It took some grown up grandchildren doing some straight talking to stop a court case, as well as stopping my friend giving up his inheritance .

so whilst instinct says equal, it’s not always that clear cut.

Equally and the beneficiaries can then alter the amounts as they see fit.
I gave my inheritance to my sibling. They needed it, I didn't.
It meant a huge amount to me that my parent left us equal amounts but they trusted that I would do the right thing.
Inheritance can rip families apart if it isn't handled well and there are far more important things to be lost rather than just money.

If you were the sibling who inherited more, would you share it equally with your siblings?

Its often the case that one sibling steps up and takes on care/support of elderly parents, often for years. Its entirely understandable that parents would want to leave that sibling a larger share.

I think equally unless there are significant disabilities, a friend of my dad's was left the whole estate family business, house and financial assets on the proviso he took guardianship of his disabled sister and she was always cared for in the way his parents wanted (in the family not a care home) , he would've done it anyway but she didn't have capacity to manage finances or live alone

It’s a shame you’re blaming your parent’s choice in your sister.

It’s striking that in these responses a lot of pps justify an equal split by saying wealthier siblings should not be punished for working hard and describing less well off siblings as making poor life choices. Lots of very hard working people don’t work in fields with high earnings and people can also become impoverished via life circumstances and not poor choices. To assume wealth is proof of good life choices and poverty always of bad is very unnuanced. I am not saying this means don’t split equally. In most cases this is definitely best. But it also can be more complicated in some circumstances.

For the most part, equally. If you don’t do it equally there is far more likely to be a fall out between siblings after parents have died.

I don’t think circumstances should come in to it ( unless we’re taking multi millionaires in the family or serious disability) .

One child who works hard and saves and is fairly sensible with money shouldn’t be penalised because a sibling chooses to spend any spare cash on holidays and an expensive car or doesn’t even try to improve their career prospects.

If you brought your children up to be caring and have good morals, then they will understand and support why one sibling should receive more inheritance than the rest.

I disagree. DH has grown up to be caring and have good morals somehow in spite of PIL, not because of them. His Dsis has always been favoured by PIL, simply because she was a much longed for girl. They bought her a starter home, they bought her a car and paid for driving lessons, they spent over £50k on her wedding and paid for her honeymoon. DH never recieved any of this support. He was expected to get a job and pay 'room and board' as a teen before he even left school. Dsis has never worked, she doesn't need to because PIL continue to subsidise her entire life, including paying for her holidays and cosmetic procedures. DH and I are fortunate to have a very comfortable life now but we also worked hard for this and did struggle when we were first starting out, as most young couples do. Ironically, when PIL need any practical support or help it's DH not his sister they call!

DH has told me he is sure his Dsis will inherit the vast majority, if not all, of his parents estate. He doesn't expect inheritance to be equal because things have never been equal in their lifetime. He accepts this as his reality and when the time comes he won't challenge it, but does he "understand and support" it? No, and I don't see any reason why he should.

Equally!
Just to start I'll explain family as we are blended.

I have DS 25 (still at home but in process of buying)
Husband DD 23 (has a council house)
and we have DS17 together (lives at home)
DSD has mum and one step sibling mum has house and saving etc that she will get 50% of.
DS 23 has 3 half siblings and dad doesnt own anything so there no inheritance there.
Obviously DS has both husband and I to inherit from.

My DS (25) worked hard at school got a good job works hard has a good wage about to buy a house. DS (17) also worked hard at school and is now studying to become an engineer has secured an apprenticeship and is saving and works hard DSD(23) messed about at school no GCSEs had a big savings investment plan (£25,000) from her mum she squandered on drugs and tattoos by the time she was 19 (9 months), she now has DGS (18 months) and struggles on benefits.
There is no way id take away money from the boys that worked hard to 'support' their sister.
Husband and I have decided my 50% of our estate will be split equally between the DS25 and DS17
Husband will split his 50% between DD23 and DS17, though he is leaving and savings ISA to DS25 of a set amount. He says because DS25 will get squat from his dad and DS25 is always helping to pay for things ie vet bill for our elderly cat he paid for some plumbing work in the en suite of his room and helps out with lifts etc whereas we are constantly financially supporting DD.
So technically our estate will be split DS25 (25%) + DD23 25% +DS17 (50%)

Equally, always

I have 5 DC. 4 will receive the same, despite varying levels of current financial status; the 5th is autistic, with EUPD and depression and will need help her whole life.
It won’t be money in her pocket, though… we intend to buy (while we’re alive) a small property for her so she’ll never be homeless, and will put other help and buffers in place.
It will add up to more than the others’ shares, but not hugely. I know they won’t mind.

Equally unless one of the children has extreme additional needs such as a disability that needs life long carers etc. I think in that situation it would be reasonable to adjust accordingly with full discussions with the other children.

Benefit claimants are protected frim the bill paying burden the rest of the population endure. Then question why it should apply to them if they inherit?!?

For people who say take disability into account I’d be wary in some circumstances. As a social worker I’ve seen parents leaving large sums of money or half a house to their adult child with a learning disability who receives care services and all that happens is the council swoop in and make them self-funders until their money runs out again. Parents need to be smarter in circumstances like this.

That's what I mean if Sibling 2, is in receipt of housing benefit or other UC either now or as they age into pensions then the inheritance would be taken into account.

If you think theyd invest it, actually buy a property so they have something to leave for their kids then I'd think differently.

Depending on circumstances and if the parents could afford to it might be worth passing some on that money on while they are alive to avoid inheritance taxes.

I think the best starting point is equal shares, then over the years re-visit your Will as circumstances might have changed.

I have two adult sons, one has two teens the other no children - my Will is for now staying as equal shares, with a small legacy for each grandchild.

There was a time when Estates would be left to the most successful capable child. Now the pendulum has swung and they see want to leave their estates to their most "feckless" (fior want of a better term) child. IMO both are wrong.

This and disability. I would hope that for my family (upwards being my parents and my brother and downwards being DH and DC) we would be adult enough to have a conversation that set those expectations should they arise. As it is my brother and I are likely to share the load with my parents (they’ve been through some tough times and we both really rallied very equally to support them and each other).

I definitely wouldn’t expect or leave inheritance based on in-law wealth etc. if there were a situation like one child was disabled or suffered mental health problems and the support would be invaluable then I’d consider it but I think open conversations about it well before inheritance is received can only be a good idea

I have taken legal advice recently and this is not my understanding under English Law. I understand Scotland and Europe may be different, but in England you are able to leave your money as you wish providing you have not established a dependent relationship. For example, funded a child continuously through their adult life. In your case with an estranged sister, this would not be a n issue.

It's good when families work well down the generations.

In one case the parents had left everything in equal shares to their two children. They had also been paying into savings for each grandchild, but the older child had three children and the other just one (who was also a lot younger, so less money saved).

When they died, the arguments that followed consisted of the older child trying to change the 50/50 split to top up the single grandchild's savings, to 'make it fair'. And the younger child saying no, because their parents had wanted each sibling, ie family, to inherit equally.

True, some people are manipulative and use their wills accordingly - which is awful, and I'm sorry you're going through that!

What I meant in more general terms was that speaking about legacies using words like "reward" and "punishment" just carries on the parent-child dynamic. That the money you're getting is a pat on the head - the money you're not getting is time on the naughty step.

It may actually play out like that, as in your case. But there are other circumstances where framing the will in those terms, which was not how it was intended, just breeds resentment. (And yes, I do believe in equal shares)

Wealthy people are not monolith. They're just people. I know several examples of wealthier siblings who gave the inheritance to less well off relatives (siblings/nieves/nephews).

Why can't the GC visit? Also one of them needs to deal with the trust.