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'd generally go for equal, amounts, the only thing that should possibly affect it is if one child has already been given money by parents. So if Child C has already had big handouts they should get less.

Actually, in terms of inheritance/assets etc, your equitable share is what you would be "entitled to" (for want of a better phrase). So if you had put up 100% of the funds for a house, your equitable share is 100% of that property value. If you put in 30%, whatever 30% of the sale price is, that's your equitable share.

The sale of your parents house after their death, with no will in place...Your equitable share would be your equal share of the remaining funds following repayment of any debtors as one of their next of kin.

In this case, equitable doesn't relate to their circumstances.

Parent 2 is right. Why should D be punished for doing well? That is not right.
£75k is also still very much life changing for A, B and C. And what about D’s children? Aka the grandchildren; not only would parent 1 be snubbing their own child but also their grandchildren. Who’s to say they are going to live a financially stable life and be high earners just because their parents are. Anything can happen in life, fortune changes and whilst D is looking good now, you never know what’s round the corner.

If it was my children I would normally split it equally between all four. But given how wealthy child and is and how much the money will mean to the others I can understand parent 1s thinking and I would probably agree with that approach. Child D doesn't actually need anything but is still getting something
The problem is child D may then feel less loved so I think a conversation would be necessary to explain

OP has updated there is other money for DGC.

That is a different scenario because none of the siblings is disabled. A DGC is disabled but that family has already been gifted over £100k already because of disabled DGC.

As far as I am aware, only the sibling giving away their portion is calling the other one’s partner money-oriented.

I have not mentioned any moaning.

Hope that clarifies ☺️

Let me just add another perspective.

I am in the position of child D. There has been no inheritance yet, but I have already asked parents to favour the other siblings when the time comes, because I have more than enough financial assets, and getting more would not add in any way to my happiness. In fact, I have suggested that the other siblings should receive everything of financial value when the time comes.

What I actually want is to be able to reduce the potential pressure to become my brothers keeper, so to speak. There is a house with a mortgage that the siblings could both live in, except that they might not be able to afford the mortgage, so the house might need to get sold. If I were included as a beneficiary of the estate, I would be entitled to 1/3 of the equity in the house but I would feel pressured to instead pay off the mortgage myself so that they can both live there. Even if that also got me or my descendants full ownership of the house after their deaths, it would not help me at all: they are younger and will probably outlive me, my kids will inherit more than enough when the time comes, and I do not want the long-term responsibility for a house that I own but cannot use. However, in that situation, if I were to say that I wanted my share of the equity and the house needed to be sold, I do worry that my siblings might feel I was being nasty and greedy since I have more than enough, and was in effect forcing a sale by refusing to pay down the mortgage. That is convoluted perhaps, but it is how they might feel, even if they were to think otherwise. What actually matters is how people feel.

If they do get absolutely everything from my parents estate as per my own request, and then they still cannot work out a way to keep the house themselves, then I can tell them that they have already been favoured in the will, they can either accept to sell and keep the equity 50-50, or try harder to find a way to keep the house, but I have already been more than fair. I I think they would most likely accept that.

If I were child D in the family described by OP, I would worry about potentially getting hints from parents that they worry about what will happen to C when they are gone, with implicit request that since I have more than enough, maybe I should take their place in subsidising C. I would not worry at all about missing out on £75k that I really did not need, and I would not feel less loved for missing out on that. In fact I would instead feel relieved and loved if I received full emotional permission from my parents to let go of any responsibility for C..

If child 2 has already had a house bought for them the other three should get the money in equal shares. The house is probably worth more than the 100k the others will receive!

Parent 2 is 100% right. All 4 children get equal amounts.

That's a terrible suggestion. How about the scenario of a friend of mine: she has three siblings who each have one child. She herself is childless, but very much wanted children; she has sadly got to the life stage where she is highly unlikely to be able to conceive without having found a partner with whom to have children.
How would a division like this make someone like her feel?

Not in UK, no.

My initial surgeries were not covered by the public health system where I live as they were considered “experimental” (due to being so rare, but the ones done were successful). My options at 19 years old, after a lifetime of progressively worsening symptoms, was to find the $$$$$ for private surgery costs or likely either die or be on a respirator paralysed for life.

Since then, I have received Disability payments - the total per month would not cover a room in a share house for a fortnight at market rate, let alone any other bills. That is the sum total of benefits I (and anyone else disabled here) am entitled to. Any housing/physiotherapy/transport/medications/specialists/etc have to be paid by me aside from 10 therapy sessions per year.

My siblings want their “equal” share, so the rental will have to be sold. I don’t know yet if they also expect the medical costs I have been helped with to come off my ‘share’. According to most posters here, that is what should happen…

I think it’s a little short-sighted to frame people’s earnings entirely in terms of life choices. I worked much harder than my brother all the way through school and got a better degree. I went into a caring profession which is demanding but poorly paid; he went into a high-earning job. I resent the idea that he made “better life choices” than me.

but that's exactly why your parents should treat you equally and give exactly the same amount.

There shouldn't be any judgement at all, none of you made the right or wrong choice by going for money, or for care work, you made a choice and normal parent support whatever you decided.

@SacAMain I don’t know what the morally correct thing to do in this situation is - I’m just objecting to the idea that a high earner automatically must have made better life choices than a lower earner.

It’s interesting though that A and B think D is the favourite. Somehow or other, they have got the idea that their parents value their financially successful sibling more than them. If they all get on well, as OP says they do, then I guess it’s not an issue, but…

(Edited to add that on reflection it’s entirely possible that D being the favourite child is unrelated to their financial success, but it must be hard for A and B not to see that as a factor.)

as B are the ones who got a free house from their parent, they sound a bit cheeky to now say D is the favourite 😂

@SacAMain That’s true - but parents can express favouritism in other ways than what they give their children financially. My parents used to ensure they spent the same amount on my brother and me at Christmas to the penny - but I still know he’s their favourite. It must be the same in lots of families.

(Though you’re right, and I can’t help feeling that A must be feeling a little hard done by here…)

This seems to be a neat definition of the difference between equity and equality.

Parent 2 is absolutely right. You need to be fair regardless of who needs it the most.

This is of interest to me because a similar issue arose among my mum and her siblings, with one of them receiving more than the others. No one gave a cr** about circumstances once it had happened and the very fact of the unequal distribution has literally torn the family apart. The sibling who received more no longer has a relationship with any of the others. I think it's a bad idea to split unequally because child D may come to resent their siblings. Also, have you ever considered that D doesn't like their job and is just doing to to support a nice lifestyle? If that's the case they'll reeeeally resent the unequal distribution.

parent 2

Parent 2 morally correct in my view

Parent 1 is the most fair. Parent 2 avoids relationship problems/hurt feelings. Only you know your family the best to choose which one to make.