that one child might inherit more than another....(logical people needed for this!)

[thelmasmonkey]

I'm in the process of writing will with dh but don't know if what is a fair division of assets between dcs.

Dc1 is mine from a previous relationship. DC1's father is well off. Dc2 is from current relationship.

Dh and my assets are tied into our property.

Should our property be split fifty fifty between dc1 and dc2 in event of both our deaths?
Or should my half be split fifty fifty between children while his half goes to dc2. That means dc2 stands to inherit 3/4 of estate but dc1 might potentially inherit all of her fathers.
Dc1 would inherit from her father. Dc1 will also reside with her father in event of my death. If dh and I both die then dc 2 will be orphaned and need money to help with her upbringing.

What makes me uneasy though is that there's a small risk that dc1 might not inherit anything from her father and will only have 1/4 of current estate. But if we do split 50/50 dc1 stands to inherit a lot more if her father does leave her everything.

Confused?

Yes I am aware that dcs might not get anything as estate could be used to fund me and dh in old age but l also want to prepare for alternative too.

Any advice would be great.

[thelmasmonkey]

But how is it fair if one child ends up with more than double the other?

[kawliga]

If I do as most of what posters here suggest then dc1 will be left with much more money than dc2.

Maybe. That might happen. Isn't it just like what happens when parents leave an equal amount to a dc1 who is a successful millionaire entrepreneur and dc2 who is a struggling nurse/teacher/unemployed? Your dc might end up with different amounts of money from inheriting equally, sure, but trying to 'equalize' their finances through different inheritances never ends well.

[ClashCityRocker]

Dc1 inheritance is irrelevant because it is a) not guaranteed and b) nothing to do with you and as such shouldn't impact the decisions you make regarding your child's share of your estate.

[kawliga]

All you can do is account for your estate as equally as possibly, ignoring outside circumstances.

Honestly, can you imagine how shit she'd feel if her half-sibling got three quarters of the estate on an assumption that she'd get something from someone else?

This.

[Applefallingfromthetree2]

Thelmasmonkey. I can see that right to reside will protect the childrens' inheritance in the event of a remarriage.

[JammyGeorge]

My half brothers dad is wealthy.

If my parents split there much smaller inheritance 50/50 (which I think is the intention) that means that my hb inherits twice.

Which wouldn't be so bad but he'll get a small sum off my dad making me get even less then he'll get easily 20 times that amount from his own father.

So I see where you are coming from. Luckily I love my hb to bits and would never let cash damage our relationship, but if they aren't that close when they are older it could cause problems between them.

I think whatever you decide make sure they know and are ok with it.

[HowsTheSerenity]

There is a large age gap between me and my DB. DB is from DM marrying DStepDad.
My parents (in their will) left more to my DB as hecwas much younger and would need more money if my parents died before he finished school. So DB got 60%, DSis and I got 20% each. This was revised when he finished school and it's now even.

[thelmasmonkey]

OK... But what if ex dies first and dc1 does get his inheritance?

Should this make a difference?

[Hassled]

Applefalling - we've done nothing to address that and it's a damn good point. But we're both probably past that point age-wise, IYSWIM.

[MrsBennington]

bennington I plan to leave percentage of house to kids with surviving parent having right to reside. Am I missing something?

Monkey Depends on how you own your home. if you are joint tenants your DH will get the house automatically on your death under survivorship rules - he can do what he likes with it despite your children (hoping he's a nice bloke but you never can tell :) ) . If you are Tennants in Common you each own a distinct portion of your home (eg 50%) and can therefore leave that portion to whoever you like. I have this arrangement and have left my 50% in trust for my children in case my husband remarries (and he has done the same with his half). You need to talk to a Wills specialist.

[Schoolname]

It's irrelevant because if you are bringing up children in your family as equals as one family each child in your family gets the same. You can't take into account the former partners income - you may not know the full extent of their finances,debts,they may have left their money to the donkey home, they may have 10 other children, they may gamble it away. Your responsibility is to ensure that your child is catered for within your means. To do anything other than 50/50 will cause resentment, a feeling that they are less important, less loved. What happens if it seems that DC 2 won't be left much yet suddenly goes in to become the next Madonna, do they still get the bigger share? I am amazed anyone thinks any differently.

[mynewpassion]

You split you half. Your dh can decide what he wants to do with his half. Put house as tenants in common.

If your dh had a previous child and you didn't, what would you do?

[LittleBairn]

You seem desperate to find a reason to justify giving your DC1 less.
Your DC1 inheritance from her father shouldn't really have anything to do with your choice you have no idea what he will do or what will happen to that money. This is about what you will leave to your DC it shouldn't be about her father.

[ClashCityRocker]

If they've already got the money, then maybe, but, assuming they're older, I think I'd be inclined to discuss it first with them.

I do see where you're coming from, and don't mean to sound harsh, but ive seen first hand the damage trying to correct inequality via an estate can cause - whilst you're thinking practical, your children will have just lost a parent and will be grieving and possibly not rational - it can feel like a real kick on the teeth at the worst possible time.

[thelmasmonkey]

But people do think differently. My natural instinct is to want to leave more to dc2 purely because in the end she will prob inherit less.

However I see that the majority view is different and this has given me food for thought.

[senua]

Can you work out a sort of 'minimum needed' and leave that specified amount to each DC (may be different amounts for the orphan / non-orphan) then split the remainder on some ratio?

[meerschweinchen]

I can see why this is tricky.
However I'd be tempted to split the whole estate 50/50.

If you're worrying about what's morally fair, then things are never going to be completely fair. Your dd2 has grown up with both biological parents, your dd1 hasn't. So arguably dd2 has had it easier. Nothing can be completely fair and equal.

Plus dc1's father may go on to have other children at some point, so she might not inherit all of it anyway.

Surely it's better to foster a good relationship between your dc, not resentment (which might happen if the will isn't seen as fair) That way if dc1 does end up inheriting considerably more in the future, surely she might choose to help her sister out if needs be and thus even things up anyway?

[thelmasmonkey]

littlebairn I'm trying not to think about this emotionally but logically.

If you are implying that I desperately want to give dc1 less you are mistaken. I am playing devils advocate with majority view so my final decision will be as airtight as possible.

This is a tricky situation

[kawliga]

if you are bringing up children in your family as equals as one family each child in your family gets the same

This. Family bonds are broken far more by being treated/loved unequally by parents, than by having different amounts of money in the bank. There have been so many painful threads on mn about this. I have never seen a thread by somebody whining that their brother/sister ended up wealthier than them, but there have been so many by posters deeply hurt by being treated unequally by parents. Parents don't mean to fuck up the children's lives, but they end up doing so even though they were trying to achieve 'financial fairness'.

Treat all your dc equally, that's all.

[MrsBennington]

Yeah but monkey You could die tomorrow leaving the majority of your assets to DC2 cos hats fairer. DC1 rightly pissed that sibling got more of her mothers assets and then her natural father remarries has a few more kids and dies before his new wife does. DC1 ends up with nothing. Fair??

[EbwyIsUpTheDuff]

ignore the ex. what he has or doesn't, what he may or may not leave... irrelevent.

your family unit is you, your husband, and your two children. Do you love one more than the other? because that's what I'd think (and feel) if my mother left my brother more than me. If not (and I'm assuming not!) then you leave them half each.

[kawliga]

I am all for logical thinking, mathematics, etc. But come back to your emotions and your love for your dc (and the bond between your dc) in the end before you decide. And remember that the love you give them is more important than whether they end up having the same amount of money in their lives (which they probably won't anyway, there are too many variables affecting that).

[Applefallingfromthetree2]

I still feel that exH's circumstances now or in the future are irrelevant and something you cannot consider in making your decision.

You splitting your half between your two children is perfectly fair.
Your H deciding how to allocate his half is also fair. It really depends on how he sees his position with regard to your DC1 whether he leaves her a half share or nothing. Your DC1 will have no cause for resentment whatever happens.

Writing wills is a real headache even without the complications of step parenthood.

[VivaLeBeaver]

My sister has a similar set up.

In her will she leaves her half the estate to her two kids. Her dh has 2 older kids and his half the estate is split between all four of his children.

Which makes sense to me. She leaves her estate equally to her kids. He leaves his estate equally to his.