What does fairness look like to you in this scenario?

[JonahAndTheMinnow]

Parent 1 and parent 2 have been married for a long time and have four adult children. They’ve recently sold an asset and want to share £300k amongst their children.

All children are aged between 35 and 48.

Child A - Eldest child. Married with grown-up children who live independently. Mortgage cleared recently. Household income isn’t very high and they don’t have much of a pension pot so will likely rely on state pension and likely work to full retirement age.

Child B - Was a very young single parent. Their child is now grown up and B has a partner. They live together in B’s house (bought by B’s parents) and B has no mortgage. B is a very low earner with no personal pension and will rely on state pension and work until full retirement age. Their job is tough and very physically demanding and working to 65+ will be a challenge.

Child C - Has two children (teens) in full time education, one with severe physical disabilities who will never live independently. C can’t work due to caring needs. Her husband works and he has a pension which should see them both live a modest but comfortable retirement. Child is in receipt of disability benefits. C and her husband have about 4 years left on their mortgage. Monthly payment is low on a house worth over £500k, thanks to generous gifts from parents, but they’ll never be able to downsize as it’s custom built to meet needs of disabled child. They have a lot of additional costs linked to their child- physio, need for a vehicle that can meet their needs rather than a cheap run-around etc.

Child D - Youngest child. Vey high earner married to a very high earner. No children. High mortgage costs on a large home but will clear in next five years. Own several investment properties and an holiday home outright. D and spouse will retire early with significant pensions. Current unmortgaged assets valued in the millions and had an inheritance from spouse’s parents of £600k in 2020.

Parent 1 wants to split the money between children A, B, and C so they’ll each have £100k. 1 thinks they need the money more than D and it’s a life changing opportunity for them whereas it’s not for D. 1 thinks that treating people fairly doesn’t always mean treating people equally and circumstances have to be taken into account.

Parent 2 wants to split the money equally between all 4 giving them £75k each. 2 believes that all children in the family should be treated equally, regardless of their current position.

What do you think?

I don't always think an equal split is the way to go, but I think in this case it likely is if I had to choose one of those options.

But - I think the parents might also make a reasonable argument that they want to set aside some money in trust for the disabled grandchild, or something like that, and then split the rest between the four children. I realize that might seem unfair to the other grandkids, but I do think families have a kind of obligation to work together to make sure members like that who are truly unable to care for themselves are provided for long term.

Maybe the parents of the disabled child would prefer to see their share go into such a trust. Maybe the wealthy sibling would too. It might be best to ask them. In an ideal world I think the wealthy sibling would offer something like that, but people don't always do what is ideal.

Morally child D shouldn't accept anything as they are clearly not in need

Between A B C they made their own choices and have their own struggles with life and should have it split between them.

@BibbleandSqwauk I'm familiar with that image / concept of equity vs equality, and agree with that distinction.

However, intuitively, somehow helping on a needs basis (eg we'll buy you a house as you need somewhere to live, we'll give you cash gifts for your hard times, etc) feels different from splitting a windfall / parental legacy. It's not about the amount as I'm quite sure the price of the house they bought for B then was hefty as well, plus the house payments they've made for C, and so on.

It is perhaps an arbitrary distinction between needs-based help and cash sale split, but I think because it's one large cash sum obviously divided by the number of heirs, it's quite in-your-face. This may sound materialistic, but the latter feels a bit like an indication of caring, thought, prioritisation, and perhaps even love.

Maybe parents can help other siblings with retirement in terms of gifting property or bonds or shares or etc...

Basically, D is the sticking point. D is worth millions, has no children at all to consider, has many properties, is a very high earner married to a very high earner. The other 3 are nowhere near D financially. That said, only C has underage children to support, one for lifetime special needs.

If going by need, C has highest need, A and B are pretty equal in need, then D really has no need at all. So, if divvying up by need, 150,000 would go to C, and 75,000 each would go to A and B. D would get zero because D would still have millions and millions more than A, B, and C out together.

But D is the favorite of op (parent 2) even though op claims that D is favorite of parent 1 😂

D is the youngest and the baby and the favorite of the op (parent 2) proven by the post that says it’s not fair for a grandchild to get same as D 😂

I’m usually all for equal treatment but the difference between ABC and D is obscene. It seems deeply unfair to give a multimillionaire the same as a relatively poor person with a manual labor job and very low income.

The only person who could possibly be resentful if you didn’t divide it equally is D 😂 The other 3 would be resentful if you divided it equally because D is so rich. It would in fact show that D is the pet and dividing it equally actually would not really be ‘equal’.

Saying all that, I understand that dividing it equally is kind of the only thing you can do because they’re all your children and you of course want to ‘treat them equally.’ This is a hard one. Surely D would want his/her share to go to his/her siblings?? I would ask D. That’s my advice. Ask all 4 and see what their opinions are. I would base my decision on their reasonings and feelings about it.

You might find that D would rather you give the money to ABC. Then there’d be no resentment.

Enough to C to enable them to pay off their mortgage.
Then equal shares. C has greatest immediate and short term needs.

Or if you want to do it a bit differently, equal shares to each grandchild, or even each dependent grand or great grandchild.

I'm with Parent 2. The children should be treated equally, no matter what their circumstances. However, Child B living in a house which their parents bought for them muddies the waters a little.

But D also made their own choices and had their own struggles - there's no way that high earning job hasn't come from a huge amount of work and sacrifice. It seems harsh to punish them for that.

A 4 bed detached in a decent area of my (not great) bit of the uk would set you back 200k.
Not sure about under 100k, but 150k would get you a family home.

@ColleenDonaghy I don't think "punished" is quite the right word. I would personally view 75k as a bit of a drop in the ocean in terms of adding to my net worth. I wouldn't at all feel deprived monetarily. (That said, I also know wealthy people for whom enough is never enough and even 10K is worth getting all grabby for, so...)

Money not really being the main factor, I think the main issue here would be the background of family relations. If I were D, I might feel upset about perceived bias/difference in parental levels of care and concern, rather than about losing out financially.

For me personally, I have a somewhat healthy and assured relationship with my parents and siblings (but it took quite some time for our family to arrive at that semi-healthy place as adults), but we don't know what the dynamics in their family are even though OP claims D is the favourite. There appears to be the issue of sibling rivalry and jealousy (which could also be held by D just as much as by OP), which I think supports the idea of an equal split. D can give their share or more to the rest if they want to, but only if they want to.

Equal amounts to all children

This isn’t about right and wrong, it’s about personal beliefs of which both parties are entitled to.

Equal spilt between all 4 children to avoid resentment and family fallouts. Keeping the relationship going is more important than cash.

I would encourage the low earners to buy a small investment property in the north to let out to generate additional income. Then use that income to retrain to better paid jobs and bulk out their pensions.

Wow. Of course it should be split evenly. £75k is still a large amount of money to receive each. You can't treat kids differently. D could lose it all tomorrow.

Parent 2 is right. This isn’t about need it’s about sharing and showing all their children are considered.

That is, Child D may feel they are being punished for making certain choices which have worked for them financially. If the windfall is being shared not on the basis of need - for example these parents have ALREADY bought Child B a house! Why would you leave one child out?

Split equally. To penalise success would be a terrible idea. If that person decides to give any part of it up their siblings, it is their choice,

...if it's so tricky for you and DH.... Just ask the kids how they think it should be split and do that.

Equal for all

Given that your children are all adults could this not be seen as deprivation of assets. I'm guessing at parent ages here but if the youngest is 35 then I'm assuming that parent 1 and 2 are very much older parents possibly needing care in the next few years

I’d ask Child D. Frame it that your wish is to divide the money equally, but wanted to check if they agree with that approach.

OP likely has other properties too.

I'd consider making a trust for the care of the disabled grandchild, making sure it is ringfenced just for their additional needs, not accessible by the parents or grandchild for anything they want. Then split everything else between the children equally.

Without knowing the thousand and one tiny bits of family behaviour and history from an unbiased source, there's no way we can suggest anything other than splitting the money equally between each.

Is it the norm to know the ins and outs of adult children's finances as in how much pension they have? Can't say i remember discussing this with my parents.

Just to add, if anyone is getting less inheritance (they shouldn't, but if), it should be B and C!

B already had a house bought for them. The cost at the time is irrelevant, although saying it was "well under £100k" implies it was still many tens of thousands. It's the fact that she now has a house with a 2023 value and has 20 years of not paying mortgage payments. And then C had a gift of even more than B, so again at least many tens of thousands.