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?

Which person is the childless DC getting less than?
Have you understood what's being described?

Because the grandchildren aren't some subset of their parents, they're people in their own right.

The children are each getting an equal amount from the part of the estate being given to the children. The remaining third is going to grandchildren, but could also have gone to a dear friend, charities etc.

We're all allowed leave money to more than just our children.

Yes, I have . Have you?

Of course, but if the "other" third was left to the neighbours, DC are still being treated equally. By leaving it to the progeny of one DC, they are not.

OP, what would you think if your sibling got half and you got 1/4 and your children got 1/4 between them? I think that's what would be fair.

Yes they are.

Because the children don’t “belong” to their parents - they are separate people.

And again - is your money equally your parents?

If you get a big promotion does that somehow ease your parents' financial burden? And does it mean that your parents can redistribute their wealth to your siblings because there's more money in the family?

Or are your finances separate to your parents?

These are adult grandchildren, presumably as dear to the grandmother as her own children (I don't have DGC, but I've heard many a grandparent say that) and she is entitled to leave them money in their own right.

I think it's a very fair and thoughtful way of leaving their money.
As someone else said people in their 60s are generally well set up. The grandchildren will need all the help they can get.

Sorry for your loss Op.

The DC are still being treated equally, @Fancybed , they are both getting the same amount.

The grandchildren are people in their own right, they exist independently of their parents, so they have got their own share which is nothing to do with what their mum or their aunt/uncle have been left. The GM clearly saw them as people she loved and wanted to leave money to directly. Not sure why anyone would begrudge them that.

Why would it be fair for one sibling to be left twice what the other one had?

What it boils down to is that when grandchildren are born, there are more people in your family for you to love. It doesn't mean you love other people in your family less.

Some people will want to leave some of their estate to everyone that they love. Other families are more transactional.

They're not. If parent DC pre deceased her parents, her DC get her share too, so they'll get double what the childless DC gets. Does that explain it? Like it or not, they are connected.

so, they don't benefit at all. Only the grandchildren do.

the two children still got allocated exactly the same though.

If that is their choice, so be it

Would the child with children feel it was fair if DC 1 got 50% and DC 2 + DGC1 & DGC2 getting 17% each? I wonder how they would feel if their choice to have children directly impacted their inheritance the way it has ultimately impacted DC1.

Have been in a similar situation myself. When my mother died her will made it clear that the two of us who chose not to have children were being punished. She had practically nothing to leave us, but it was the principle and the final fuck you after a lifetime of many.

@Fancybed all sorts of things could happen, but I think it's absolutely fair to distribute your own estate amongst the people you love without second guessing who in the next generation might end up leaving what to whom.

(People should be grateful they get anything at all in my opinion)

I think it's a reasonable split, given the ages of the children and grandchildren.

My will leaves everything divided equally between my children, but I don't have grandchildren to think about. If I do have them in the future, I will have to think about whether to leave them a token sum or something more substantial.

OK so you aren't happy that your kids are getting an inheritance. Are they better off than you? Most people would be pleased fkr their kids.

You said: "Of course the parents can do as they please, but the childless DC is getting less and will feel it."

Again, which person is the childless DC getting less than? I honestly don't understand what you think is happening. Two of the four people the GP wishes to leave money to are getting the same as each other, and the other two people are getting less.

Incredibly unfair.
66% is going to one side of the family and 33% is going to the other side.
The GC effectively get inheritance from GP and DP
Should be 50:50 with the offspring of the parent.

Absolutely 50/50 and gifts to the GC.

Not necessarily their parent may spend it all before they die.

I genuinely can't imagine being in my 60s, financially independent and having just lost my own mother and being upset that she shared a third of her estate with her grandchildren as well as me and my sibling.

That's a very inclusive will.

It is 50/50 with a gift to the GC. It just happens to be a large gift.