Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To prefer that my kids were adopted by anyone BUT my inlaws in the event of my death?

54 replies

whomovedmychocolate · 16/04/2007 20:10

Am currently on holiday with MiL, DH and DD (hotel has wireless so have snuck away). We stayed with SiL last night and DH (quite undiplomatically while I wasn't around, told SiL - she would NOT be named as legal guardian in the event of both of us dying because she is too old.
She went flipping mental and was still going on about it three hours later when we had dinner, wherein I tried to calm things by pointing out that she is 50-something now and she may not want to inherit a 13 year old when she is in her 60s, that as I am 20 yrs younger it'd probably never come up and that social services would have to assess her suitability if it did and that perhaps my brother and his wife (my age, three kids) might appear a better fit.
At which point MiL (80) pipes up 'well if it happens we would FIGHT for her'. SiL agrees and says 'I'm sure I could convince a court I was suitable if I hire a good barrister'.
When I responded that my daughter is not an object or prize to be wrestled for they said 'well it won't be of your concern - you'll be dead'!
DH and I discussed it later that night and as soon as we get back we are appointing two sets of guardians and making sure DD is protected from all this.
Would you leave your daughter in the care of these self-obsessed harridans? Not to mention any future children we might have.
I'm so angry with both of them.

OP posts:
Astrophe · 17/04/2007 15:24

yeah stig, 'godparents' is in no way a legal term. You need to name them as guardians in your will asap.

We have named my parents as my DCs guardians. When they are older we will probably change it to be my brother and his wife. No WAY I would want the inlaws to have them, they are as mad as cut snakes.

Astrophe · 17/04/2007 15:26

I guess its up to you what the point of godparents are. We had a Thanksgiving service for each of our DCs at our church, at which the godparents promised to pray for the children, to play an active role in their lives, to offer themselves as mentors as they grow up and to support and encourage us as parents. They are not our childrens' guardians though.

sunnysideup · 17/04/2007 15:27

hmm, well the point of Godparents, not much in many cases! But I'm cynical - have been to a few christenings, none of the people involved ever go to church or are remotely religous; so the godparents have no role at all, other than as guaranteed providers of presents. It's done as a status thing; you're being acknowledged as a good friend and it's a sign of your closeness to the parents more than anything else; in my experience.

I'm sure there are those that make it mean much more.

But yes, nothing legal about it.

expatinscotland · 17/04/2007 15:27

My children don't have godparents.

They have appointed legal guardians in the event of our deaths.

My sister. My parents as contingency.

Stigaloid · 17/04/2007 15:34

Ahh - just looked it up - apparently it is 'to help the parents raise their child in the christian faith'

Seems more of a token title these days. we were thinking of naming the godparents to our children as people who would be a good influence on them should we not be around - will sit down with DH and discuss putting legal guardianship into our wills ASAP.

Issymum · 17/04/2007 16:00

We have appointed DD1's godfather to be guardian for both DDs. As well as being an all round fabulous human being, he is a highly respected family law barrister. The terms of the appointment are that he selects whom he thinks would be most appropriate to care for the DDs (we've provided three or four suggestions). We haven't discussed it yet, but should he and his equally lovely and very responsible boyfriend choose to bring them up themselves, that would be fine too. If a little Hollywoodesque.

squeakybub · 17/04/2007 16:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

kimi · 17/04/2007 16:14

I would leave my children to Micheal Jackson before I left them to ANY of DH1s family and DH1 agrees with me on this.

My sister was going to have the boys if anything happened to DH1 and I (god forbid)
but she has been very unwell (cancer) so DH1 and I have had to re think our plans.
Not that we are planning to die any time soon, but these things have to be thought about in case the worst happens.

Original poster
whomovedmychocolate · 17/04/2007 20:52

Having spent the last 72 hours, I've decided the easiest solution is to kill the pair of them with a rusty butter knife!

No court in the land would convict me!

OP posts:
Original poster
whomovedmychocolate · 17/04/2007 20:53

Sorry, that should read 'having spent the last 73 hours WITH THEM'

OP posts:
ValnBen · 17/04/2007 21:48

Whomovedmychocolate ? in answer to your previous Q direct at me ? YES, I believe we do share the same IL?s??..?sept by now I wouldn?t be saying "I will kill them with an rusty butter knife" ? I would be saying "I HAVE killed them with a rusty BUTCHER knife"

Original poster
whomovedmychocolate · 17/04/2007 21:50

VainBen, if I post the address, would you mind doing the honours for me too please?

[taking a ticket and waiting for the queue of others to form]

OP posts:
ValnBen · 17/04/2007 21:55

Yup ? VnB takes ticket number 1 from the ticket dispenser tingymy thing?.

VictorVictoria · 18/04/2007 08:12

Issymum - this barrister wouldn't happen to work at QEB would he?

Issymum · 18/04/2007 12:53

VictorVictoria: I guess I couldn't say 'yes' if he did as I wouldn't want to 'out' him (not that his sexual orientation is a dark secret), but no he doesn't work at QEB.

Gosh, does that mean that there are TWO highly respected, generally fabulous and openly gay family law barristers?!

FluffyMummy123 · 18/04/2007 12:55

Message withdrawn

VictorVictoria · 18/04/2007 12:56

There certainly are.........gosh I was convinced they must be one and the same. The one I am thinking of (great friend of great friend) is totally out and has lovely partner etc etc.

Hassled · 18/04/2007 13:01

whomovedmychocolate (great name - I'm very jealous of it!) - your ILs are INSANE and the fact that you're still there on holiday with them makes you a good candidate for sainthood. I'll have a word with the Pope.
My DS2 asked what would happen to him and DS3 if DH and I died, and I told him we'd asked my ex-DH (father of DS1 and DD - lousy husband but great father). DS2 now can't wait for the happy day - has worked out what bedroom he'd have in ex-DH's house, how they could talk football constantly etc etc

Issymum · 18/04/2007 13:11

Victor/Victoria: This barrister's initials are JD. But I guess that the Bar is a groovy place so the possibility of two such lawyers is not that remote. Oh god, actually it is!

ash6605 · 18/04/2007 13:17

this is something my dh and i have thought long and hard about yet to no avail.my mother died a couple of years ago,i don't have contact with my alcoholic father and my in laws are useless pathetic excuses for grandparents. we have no siblings or really good friends we'd trust with our kids.like you i'd rather they were adopted than go with people who don't give a flying f*&% about them. for this reason we have no will sorted as we really don't know what to do.

VictorVictoria · 18/04/2007 13:18

Issymum - barrrister I am thinking of is SL but weirdly there is also highly respected family solicitor called JL (not D but hey its close).

What an enlighted place the family bar must be

Right must go back to the spreadsheet I am working on. BTW very much enjoy your contrinutions on the WOHM thing. As a full time city fundmanager with child and nanny a great deal of your comments are pertinent.

evenhope · 18/04/2007 13:20

This subject has always worried me. With the older kids we'd always said they'd go to my parents and now they are of an age where they could actually look after themselves. But we've just had a new baby and my mum is nearly 70. With the best will in the world she could no longer have total responsibility for a small child.

As I understood it, if you name guardians in your will they only have to ensure the child goes to a good home, not take them in themselves- is that right? I'm assuming we'd have to leave the new baby to her sister and brothers, 3 of whom are old enough to be her parents anyway, but I kind of feel it wouldn't be fair to any of them to lumber them with the responsibility if we were to die in the next 5 years when they've got uni and their own careers/ relationships to forge.

But everyone else is so old

LieselVentouse · 18/04/2007 13:20

My sister and her husband have agreed and will be DDs guardian in the event of our deaths. Everybody knows this even DD - in fact she quite likes the idea of having a permanent sleepover at my sisters. If we are found murdered in our bed you all heard it here first.

Issymum · 18/04/2007 13:23

Why thank you VictorVictoria! As you may have seen, I've opted out of fighting the WOHM corner as I'm just too wearied by the debate. One of the key attractions of MNet for me is its coven of WOHMers, three of whom I've met in RL where they exceeded their virtual expectations.

Mum2FunkyDude · 18/04/2007 13:24

We drew up a will specifying a person we want as legal guardian and made sure it was discussed with said person and arranged beforehand.