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?

Definitely equal.

Parent 2. Equal split between the children.

Discuss with all children (separately, but speak to child D first) that you want to split it fairly and think that the best way ie the only way to not having anyone feeling less loved than the siblings (because it's not true that you love any of them more than the others and you REALLY want to avoid anyone feeling that) is to split it equally.

With any luck, if you have brought your children up properly the well off one may tell you to give them less than the others. But it would be their choice, and my guess it that they would still like to receive SOMETHING because a financial gift IS symbolic of that to some extent.

Plus you don't know what their real financial situation is. Maybe they are in a lot of debt, or want to start a business up, and a monetary gift would be really useful to them. Maybe (unbeknowns to you) they are likely to divorce in the next couple of years and the partner's inheritance would not come into the divorce settlement. All of this sounds unlikely but you can't assume. YOu need to have that discussion with them. And if they don't want to give some of their share to their siblings then please don't think bad of them. In their eyes they may genuinely see it as an "equal love" thing.

No question at all, divide equally 4 ways.

I think split it equally 4 ways.

Parent 2 is correct.

Here's a radical idea: keep it.

Have A and D already had less of a helping hand from Mum and Dad?
And parent 1 is suggesting B and C get more, whilst D continues to get nothing??

Either split is qmequally between the 4, or balance up the gifts already handed out by assisting A and D more.

B became a single mum at 16 and lived with her baby in her parents’ home until she was 22, while working full time in a low-paid job. Baby’s father wasn’t involved at all. Her parents then bought her an inexpensive house (for well under £100k in today’s money) outright so that she could live independently with her child.

So B has already been helped once by parents?

Financially, the help given to child C to ensure their disabled child could be supported and adequately housed for their needs was far in excess of what was provided for B (and more than A, B, or D will get this time, regardless of how it’s split).

And C has already been helped too?

Parent 2 is right. You must now treat them all equitably.

If you MUST disadvantage D, then add the grandchildren into the asset split. This will give more money per family to A, B, and C.

But I think you should treat them as equal siblings and split 4 ways.

If it's not divided equally then child A and child D should get more of it as the other 2 have already had considerable help. Definitely don't cut out child D!

If you want your children to remain civil with each other and not resent each other then the only thing to do is to split 4 ways equally.

I think they should each receive the same. It’s still a life changing amount for A, B and C.

If I had a very good relationship with D maybe I’d talk to them about it and if they volunteered to receive less/none at all and to keep quiet about it then maybe I’d take them up on the offer. But that’s as far as I’d go.

Parent 2 is right.

Anything else will sew the seeds of resentment.

A and D have been short changed so far.

Whilst understandable in a way I would be having a frank conversation with them before making any decisions.

I would talk to child D and see how they feel. Maybe they might value something else other than money, a piece of family jewellery that has massive sentimental value.

I would add don’t discuss with the children. Whatever you say to child d will feel like pressure. Even if they have circumstances such as debt or potential divorce how could they say that they are more worthy of a share than a sibling with a severely disabled child. It would feel that should trump everything because it is known by everyone and so obvious.

If they approach you then you can say you are happy for them to pass on anything but to them first.

I’m strongly in favour of treating them all equally. If one has already had a generous gift then this could be the time to even it up.

You as the parents should treat them all equally, and hope that they would choose to help each other if there was a need.

With any luck, if you have brought your children up properly the well off one may tell you to give them less than the others.

I am a high earner, my sister is a low earner. For a long time, I would have told my parents to just give their estate to her. Then I was diagnosed with cancer in my thirties. Treatment devastated my financial situation, and as I have two young children I am now scrambling around to ensure that they don't lose their home, and won't be telling my parents to prioritise my sister. Nobody knows what is coming down the road - the only way to futureproof fairness is to split it equally.

Parent 2 obviously.
Treating people fairly me and treating them equally.

Parents 1 s option is horrible!

Parent 2 is right

What you need to do (and I'm going to use the figure of £100k as a guestimate for what you gave to kid C) is say:

Overall the pot for helping our children is £300k now, plus £100 historically, and another £100k historically.

That's £500k.

Each child should have had £125k at the end of this process.

But B and C have already had £100k of their £125k, each. So they have £25k left to receive. A and D have their full £125k to receive.

definitely parent 2- it will cause huge resentment otherwise.

All dc treated the same. Get the same amount regardless of their situation. If one sibling doesn’t want theirs, it can be divided by 3 and so on.

Divide half by 4. Keep the other half as a fund for when children or grandchildren need extra support.

The parents have also got to think long-term - once they're dead and gone, is it better for A, B and C to have a well-off sibling who doesn't resent them for having so much more from their parents than they ever got, and might be more inclined to help them if needs be - or for one who feels a bit bitter over them getting more and thinks they should shift for themselves?