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?

Parent 2 and if one child chooses to pass their share to another then that's their choice

Parent 2 is correct. It seems unfair but 75k is a lot for the other 3 already and it would be crazy to exclude child D just for being successful.

I think Parent 2 has suggested the fairest solution.

But being in a family where we are the more well off ones compared to sibling, in their shoes, I would personally rather my portion go to siblings. I think it may be a conversation that's worth having with D to ask about what they would feel most comfortable doing. That's not to railroad them into giving up their bit, but you may just want to bring them into the decision making. If they are a decent person who doesn't take their privilege for granted, I can't see how they could be offended by that.

I'm not even going to read the different circumstances, 100% share it equally, no discussion as far as I'm concerned!! I'm one of five we are all in different financial positions and I would absolutely feel this is the right way.

I have a term life insurance that I took out so there would be monies to pay for childcare etc if I died whilst my dc were young - I was 42 when I had my youngest. It still has about 5 years to run. Dc4 is almost 16, dc3 is at university and dc1 and 2 are married with a child each. Obviously dc4 would not require childcare but we were wealthier when dc1 and 2 left home and we gave them about £20k each when they were 18. They were lucky when they went to university fees were much less and they had a maintenance grant which did not need paying back. We also bought their first car. They both own their own homes with a mortgage though dc2's in laws are very wealthy and gave them £3m a couple of years ago. Also their ds is a beneficiary of a family trust which will pay for his private education. Dc1 does not have that and lives in a small terrace. Dc3 was given about £5 k when he was 18 and it looks like dc4 will get about £3k. We can't afford to pay for a car for them. If I die whilst the policy is active I actually think it should be split between dc3 and dc4 ( totals about £200k) with a sum going towards their university fees - both dc1 and dc2 have repaid their student loan. I can't see how giving dc2 £50k would make much difference to her life style.

£75k to me would be life changing. I’d suggest equal or discuss with child D. How would they feel. Do they feel loved and secure enough in the parental and sibling relationships - or could this destroy a family?

Split evenly. My Mum has over the years given my sibling an eye watering amount of money and nothing to me because apparently I don’t need it. It hasn’t done our relationship any good because firstly it’s unfair and secondly she’s completely wrong about my finances. If sibling passes first, she’s on her own. I don’t owe her anything.

I think the massive variations in the four children's circumstances, and the range of responses on here, just illustrate that the only possible way to do it without going down rabbit holes is an equal four-way split.

Parent 2, it should be equal. Also, child D may ask for their share to given to their siblings.

Equal means 4 equal amounts in this case. I say this as someone who has received inheritance and I am the one on tax credits and a single parent with a disabled child and the other sibling is married to an extremely high earner who’s annual bonus is more than my income BUT we share equally in things like this. Both our parents have always given us the same and treat all the grand children the same too.

This is about treating everyone the same and not trying to make everyone’s circumstance end up the same or nearer t the same. This is not the education system where some children need extra adjustments to be able to have the same chance to achieve the same as their peers.

Parent 1 needs to use their brain and understand that circumstances change. Anything could happen to make child D as worthy as the others.

When my Aunt and Uncle told their kids they were planning an equal split, the eldest, wealthy child told them to split it between her two siblings, then the two eldest told them to leave their house to the youngest, as she will never be able to get a mortgage, due to a serious health condition. Very unselfish.

I think the approach should be an equal split, as why should one sibling effectively have to pay for the other siblings' life choices?

But: I'd also have an open conversation with all siblings and if D wants to forgo their 'portion', they can speak up and do that.

I didn't even get as far as reading your dc's individual circumstances- they're irrelevant.

Even if I only had two children and one was a penniless single mother and the other a married high earner I would only ever split it equally. Parent 1 is mad to think leaving one child out won't have serious ramifications.

In my family there are two child Ds, though they are not the youngest, and then there are three needier children - one of whom has indeed had a house bought for them by the parents.

Only one of the parents is still alive. That parent called both D children and sort of fished for their opinion on whether the inheritance should be split equally five ways or to just share it between A, B and C.

D1 said "split it three ways and just leave me a token item", but D2 said "no, I want my full share".

So it has become very awkward. The inheritance will be split 5 ways because D2 did not like the look of it being split four ways especially since D2 is actually the better off out of D1 and D2.

D1 will re-distribute her inheritance equally amongst A, B and C, but feels the impact of this gesture has been diminished by the fact that D2 won't be following suit.

I think it's really important when parents are contemplating their demise that they feel all their children will be looked after once they are gone. The worry can become quite significant otherwise.

I would guess you are C

I’d speak to child D and see if they’d be willing to forego their share

I didn’t even read the whole OP because I knew where it was going. It makes no difference how much money each child already has, or their situations, it should be divided equally between all of them.

Parent 2 is right. Split it evenly between the four children.

Just because “D needs it less” at the moment - circumstances change. Don’t create division.

Anything could happen to any of them to change their circumstances. Split it equally.

I earn more than my sibling and have more assets as a result of certain decisions - including in working in a professional job with stress and long hours. My sibling has chosen more of a vocation with likely less earnings as they don't want an office job and want to work less hours. I have always felt a lot of 'shoulds' ('should' get x job, 'should' do well at exams etc) - I am quite envious but I am also more pragmatic and know I do want a certain standard of living for me and any future kids. I would be deeply upset if my parents left more to my sibling because they have less money as a result of these choices. I don't think how many kids adult kids have should factor in (said as someone more likely to have kids than my sibling). However, I do think having a disabled child could warrant different treatment if as a result the adult child is struggling. In this scenario, I would definitely split it equally.

Also agree that you don't know what will happen in the future.

I totally get where parent 1 is coming from in this - equity versus equality and all.

But what I will say is that my sibling is massively better off than myself, and always will be - nevertheless it has never occurred to me that we’d have anything other than an equal split of inheritance or anything else.

Split equally unless Child D says they would rather it went to the other three. But that should only come from Child D as an unsolicited offer, not be posed to them as a question.

If they're all going to argue and be horrible about the money then I'd say parents should keep it and take a round the world holiday!!

In my DH's family the 'sibling D' equivalent has volunteered to get no inheritance and for it all to go to the other siblings, but the parents are being tight-lipped about what they'll decide! I understand both parents' views but I also think if you're in Sibling D's position it's the right thing to do to offer to forego money which would be so much more transformational to others than it would to you.