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?

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.

most people will work to retirement age and they have a roof over their head

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.

This child has already been given a free house to live in and that is worth thousands

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.

they have a house they worked for and paid for

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.

They don't actually need any money

you could split it Child C gets £200,000 - after all they might need the money for the child and making life easier
Child A gets £80,000, they can supplement their income and the other two get £10,000 both have already inherited and been given a house etc

If we are doing it as need for money not a gift - but it'll cause resentment all round

I have 2 siblings. One is very rich, and the other doesnt have much money. One worked their arse off, and the other made poor life choices. I am somewhere in the middle.

If you decided to give one of my siblings one thing, and the others a lesser share I would be mighty pissed off with you and it would affect our relationship. It is not about the money, it is about favouring one child over the other. They are all your DC, and they should be treated equally, irrespective of how much money they have. Your DC4 may say, we don't need this, and pass it to the others, but that is their choice.

You are essentially penalising DC4 for making different life choices.

Please don't do it. Honestly, if you were my parent and you did that to me, I wouldn't speak to you again. I also know that my siblings would be mortified and horrified that you did that.

Split equally. I was a high earner, as was my husband. I then had my children older, in my 40s, and gave up my job to raise them. My husband was made redundant. You don't know what the future holds for any of them. Split equally.

I agree. I think i'd tell you to shove the money and never speak to you again if you did that to me.

What's so challenging for b? Doing better than most. Have always fully owned a property never had worry of rent/mortgage so if both they and partners have always worked full time they must have a good disposable income?

I think equity only comes into it in relation to child C, who has already been supported terms of the house adapted to their child's needs. OP has also said there is separate provision for the grandchildren, given the generosity re the house I suspect this is enhanced for the grandchild with a disability.

The others have all made their own choices in life.

I didn't read the individual circumstances, as always split things equally between your children.

My DM always used to say you all get treated fairly but not always 'the same', so I do get where P1 is coming from.
However when it comes to inheritance I really think that it needs to be an equal split. Noone knows what the future holds so to give more to a DC because in the 'now' they would probably benefit from it more, is unfair on those who might need it in the future.
Also when parents have both gone, anything but equal shares is gonna cause upset/bad feeling between the siblings.
Parent 2 all the way.

Obviously, split equal. Unless you enjoy drama and want a family rift and D to go NC with you.

Im the high earner out of my siblings and I am so sick of them getting everything. Just because I worked hard and had success doesn’t me I don’t like free stuff. It’s makes me resent my siblings.

Yes, I know I sound horrible and materialistic!

Needs to be shared equally

I agree with you that they should all get an equal share regardless of their financial situation.

Split it equally.

The other solution is to have an honest and open talk.

My SO will waive some of his inheritance rights (not in the UK, children /offspring have a legally protected minimum inheritance where we live) because his younger brother lives in their family home with his children.

But that was agreed upon and talked about. And I am honestly still not sure it was the best solution in regards to family dynamics, resentment etc.

But getting a lesser inheritance is still not the same as getting nothing at all for the sake of your siblings, which seems genuinely cruel.

And wouldn´t 75k still be a live changing amount to siblings 1 - 3?

Parent 2 is correct it should be split equally

I am in the position of child D.

My parents made substantial contributions to pay for each of my siblings weddings. They didn’t do the same for me. While I understand their reasoning and still had the wedding of my dreams, it still hurts 15 years later.

Parent 2.

All children equally

75k each, parent 2 is right

D is young enough to have kids. D could have a disabled child just like C. D could get ill. D could have 5 kids. D could get into a messy breakup. High earners often have shockingly large expenses. Nobody knows.

There is no possible agreeable way to divide it up other than 75k each.

75k is still life changing for A, B & C.

Imagine being D and watching all siblings get 100k and you get nothing. Plenty of people would cut you off for good in D's position.

The parents should split the money equally.

if the wealthier children want to split their share between their siblings they can.

is OP going to come back and say which parent they are?

You don´t.

I see it with my SO.

His mother expects him to pay the money back she lent him for university. He went as an adult/in his mid 20s so that´s her reasoning. Which I could understand if the same rules also applied to his younger brother...

His younger brother lives in the family home (huge house, annex for the MIL) and pays rent that is considerably lower than market rate.

The younger brother made some choices that lead to my SO having a somewhat (not massively) higher income. And my SO does not have children (with 2 different women).

But it still seems unfair to give the younger one a financial break (with no strings / expectations of payback) whilst expecting the older one to pay back every last penny he received for university.

But not my family. So all I do is support my SO and offer my opinion when he asks...

There is only one answer - equal division. Anything else is favouritism and is wrong. It would be the modern equivalent of not giving to girl because her husband will provide for her. The circumstances of the individuals are irrelevant and you will set your children up for future resentment and conflict if you act with unfairness now.

B and C sound like they’ve already done well from the bank of mum and dad. It should be split evenly as is a gift and no one’s future is guaranteed, it is up to child D if they want to pass their share on but that should be their decision alone

I'm in agreement with parent 2, but is is something that could be discussed with D to get their input? Going along with parent 1 is probably going to cause problems amongst the siblings and likely feelings of resentment.

The OP might not even be the parent here. Lots of people suspect the OP is C. Not least because C’s situation has been presented so as to elicit maximum sympathy for their greater ‘needs’ (while D has been presented as some sort of rich kid of instagram).

As soon as you get into assessment of ‘challenges’ and ‘needs’ and definitions ‘equitable’ as some sort of distribution of resources activity you are making a set of extremely contestable and often highly partial value judgements.

It’s one thing for the state or an organisation to make these (highly political!) value judgements to drive decisions about the allocations of collective resources. But this is a family. Parents deciding which of their children are more or less deserving of help (financial, practical, whatever) only have themselves to blame if their children decide to distance themselves from what may very well feel like a dysfunctional and toxic environment.

Then those parents are probably confused because they feel they are morally right and their now more or less estranged child is being nasty.

To me, it's still pretty wild that people are suggesting including D in a conversation.

If nothing else it's pretty fucking infantalising to the other siblings.

"Hey Dinah, you're our only non-screw up kid. What do you think about these allowances we've planned for the others? We know Christine has her disabled kid, Becca was never going to amount to much, but what about Abby?"

Terrible suggestion, yet people keep making it.

as suggested already I would talk to child 4 make sure that he doesn’t feel abandoned and still give a small amount just to relief 1-2 months of mortgage fees (£3-4k maybe?) and get expensive presents for them.
i would give the rest to children 1 and 3. I would financially manage the amount for child 2. Maybe invest a part? She clearly made wrong decisions in her past and I would like to protect her future from herself. Would give her in hand 2-3k the same as child 4.

Parent 2 is right.

Though, depending on the relationships. The parents could ask child D what their opinion is. Giving them the choice. They may feel happy to split their share between their siblings.