It's another will one. What do you think about this will?

[LindorDoubleChoc]

Single parent dies. They have two children in their 60s. I'm using children in the broadest term here because obviously they are not children.

One of these has two children in their early 20s (their only grand children). The other "child" has none.

The child who has no children is pretty well off. The child with two children is not so well off (possibly because apparently it costs £180,000 per child to raise them from birth to 18).

The parent divides the will one third each to her two children, and one third for the grand children to be split 50/50 between them.

What do you think of that?

I think it’s very thoughtful.

I personally think that is very fair considering circumstances but I'm sure you will get a few saying it should be 50/50 between the 2 kids and the one that has children could then choose to share her half with them.

I think it should be 50:50, personally. It's up to the child-free child to say if they want it adjusted to 77:33.

One person decided to have children. The other was unable or unwilling to have children. Both have hardships as a result of their decision.

If I were the mother/grandmother I would leave something to the grandchildren, but nothing like the same amount as I'd leave my own children.

I think that's absolutely fine.

The child who didn't have children may feel a bit hard done by, but from the grandparent's pov, they have four close family members and are benefiting all of them.

Giving 2/3rds to the sibling with children would be unfair, but that's not what's happening. Presumably if they had one DC each the split would be the same.

I think it's fair.

People in their 60s are well set up (in general) and so I'd leave a third to the grandkids who are just starting out.

I think it’s better for everything to be split between the two direct children, perhaps with small bequests to the grandchildren. If the parent of the grandchildren wants to pass some on immediately, that’s up to them.

I think it's the person who made the will's choice. It's not glaringly unfair so I would say it's fair enough.

I'd be happier with a 50:50 split regardless of circumstances.

The wealth of the adult DC is completely irrelevant.
50/50 only.

I think it's fair. Neither sibling is getting more than the other.

Should add that the one child who didn't have children very definitely did NOT want children, it wasn't a decision that was made for them by nature.

Very fair.

It is more than fair to the one with 2 children.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Nobody is owed an inheritance.

Legacies are about so much more than the money. The only way to do it is 50/50 between the children IMO. Anything else favours one child, even if the less favoured one doesn't need it (or even want it) they'll still feel it

It is entirely up to the persons whose will it is (with certain caveats such as being able to make the will). This one seems,perfectly fair a 1/3 to the 2 children and 1/6 to the 2 grandchildren and the one without children then has a 1/3 to decide what they want to do with it

given the age of the children I assume the grandchildren are also adults with needs and requirements of their own.

I am an only child and with my support and encouragement my parents will covers me and my two children individually as well so some will go directly to them. We are about to receive inheritance from my FIL so will be mortgage free so it makes perfect sense to me to go to the next generation (although not just yet)

Irrelevant, as is the cost of raising a child. If you're trying to hide who you are, you're not doing a very good job.

All children are getting the same amount, all grandchildren are getting the same amount. Therefore, fair.

If you are the sibling who had children I'd say as little as possible. I think your sibling in unreasonable to think it's unfair, but emotions aren't reasonable and we have no idea of the backstory and any other financial/emotional/practical support given over the years that may be feeding into the perception of inequality.

This is true. The siblings are getting the same.

The grand children are getting something else.

The parent of the grand children could be grumpy about not getting 50% of the will and then onward distributing it as they feel fit (they could decide not to pass on as much if anything).

Sounds fine to me. The person writing the will clearly had specific wishes about making sure the grandchildren were given a share of the money and made their will accordingly, rather than just hoping the money would trickle down later from the parent. If the childless child has an issue with that, they seem a bit grabby.

I agree. The childless "child" has shown no signs of being grabby. I am the child with grand-children and just checking in that this will could be seen as fair.

50:50 to the children regardless of the grandchildren. It’s as much a choice to have children as it is to be child free. Neither should be rewarded or punished for their life choices, so if you want fair imo then it is split equally.

Ok I misread the OP.

Yes, I think this is another fair way to do it, but my preference would be to the children only. Not sure why, though.

I think as it’s their money they can divide it as they please.

Seems very fair. As the grandchildren are adults both direct descendants get the same amount and there is no direct benefit to the sibling with children as they are adults.

You've ignored all the people who said it's not fair.

I don't think the money itself matters, but being treated equally by your parents matters a lot. You're essentially saying your "side" deserves more becuaee you chose to have children whole she chose not to.

However, if you really want to know how it feels you need to speak to your sister. Also, why are your parents having this conversation with you and not with her?