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?

Equal between them all. Don't have favourites or make up reasons to give some more than others. It NEVER ends well

You're C, aren't you?

So B and C have already had significant amounts of money given to them, still expect to inherit 25% at least, but you think D (and, to a slightly lesser extent, A) should suck it up and crack on?

Absolutely not. P2 is right.

Just split it evenly. Honestly, anything else requires value judgements about needs and prospects and choices - and will just breed resentment.

They are all £75k better off than they were previously. Anyone whinging how it’s unfair they didn’t get more or how their sibling deserved less is just being awful.

Assign an amount to each child and an amount to each grandchild.

Parent 2 is definitely right. Making the split unequal that way is very unfair and will only lead to resentment. It would be one thing if Child 4 were Bezos or Musk league wealthy, but they still have a mortgage to pay off, and circumstances can change. Plus, once you decide to 'means test', as it were, then you could presumably also argue that Children 1, 2, and 3 were not equally (dis)advantaged and should they all receive exactly 100k, or should there be variation?

I’m with parent 2.

Fair doesn’t always mean equal, but equal isn’t unfair.

In a situation like this, parent 1’s plan would be a kick in the teeth to child D.

I would speak to child D first but think ultimately it should be split between A,B and C.

Parent 2 with a hope that should the other children feel they have no need of the money they kindly donate to their siblings that do

Parent 2. DH has experience of this and the resentment and hurt is everlasting.

Parent 2 is right.
My husband's parents treat both my DH and his sister equally.
His sister and her DH are much better off financially than us.
The fact that his parents help us equally to them doesn't bother us one jot, of course it should be the same or not at all.
The main thing that causes family fallouts is being unequal.

I know families where uneven splits in gifts and inheritances have happened or are planned (my own included) and everyone has been fine with an unequal split because of differences in personal circumstances. However, in these cases the initiative has come from the person who is basically D in this scenario who has said to their parents "give it/ leave it to X because they need it more". So here, I think it really depends how D feels about it. I think the starting point has to be an even split. However, it's complicated by the fact that it hasn't been even up until now.

Split equally between all of you. 'D' s position or heritance from elsewhere should not be brought in to it. Personal circumstances should not be a factor in the sharing out of your parents money.

It should be split equally unless D volunteers to give up their share, without prompting.

Three kids in my family. One extremely wealthy, one’s husband lost all their money in schemes, one disabled.

Our parents divided their money equally and honestly nobody gave it a second thought.

Because it was fair and equitable.

If I was A I would be really pissed off. B & C have had financial support already - reason is irrelevant. Even if split between A, B & C that does not balance out unfairness with A.

However a 4 way split will help stop any further bitterness from simmering.

So A and D are already being treated less favourably as they haven’t had the huge financial handouts given to B and C.

Excluding D would be very cruel. Does parent 1 not like them much?

Share equally between all 4 .
If not, you actually can create tension between the siblings where there wasn't tension before. It is really bad to not treat them all the same , regardless of who has what currently.

I’d go with parent 2. Always better to split equally to avoid hurting feelings. It’s about feeling treated fairly and loved the same.

I would talk to Child D and ask them what they think when you lay it out like you have here.

We have a 'child D' equivalent in the sibling set on my husband's side, and he has declined financial gifts from the grandparents several times so more could be given to siblings who were struggling in comparison.

Go from there.

Conversely I have a friend with a disabled (adult) sibling and the other siblings (3 of them) know that parent's money will all go into a trust for the care of the disabled sibling, and they are ok with it as they recognise that the care costs will have to come from somewhere and friend's perspective is that she'd rather it was allocated to him directly than that her parents just sort of trust them to do the right thing, with the risk that the other three end up fighting over who should pay what (post- IHT as well). But it's very dependent on circumstance.

Parent 2 is right, as everyone seems to agree!

If the sums of money were larger then the possibility of also setting up trusts to leave some to grandchildren might be considered (thereby benefiting the siblings with children over D).

My older sibs all left school early, made poor choices and generally felt life had been hard on them. I stuck out some toxic parental behaviour to finish A levels, go to college on a full ride (no financial help from parents at all, working all the holidays to support myself). My mother always maintained I 'did not need their help' and gave all of them significant hand outs - like house sized handouts. It was shitty, and certainly damaged my relationship with her. And them too, because they have continued to make up all kinds of stupid reasons why they need money more than I do and feel that if we have to pay equally for something, they should not have to put in. Parent 1 is potentially ruining the family now and in future.

Equal shares, obviously. Otherwise it will cause stress and drama later on. If one sibling feels charitable, they can give their money away.

If I was child D, I'd want my siblings to have it split between them, I think you should talk to child D and ask them what they think would be fair? Whatever they say is what goes in the interest of fairness and sibling relationships after you're gone.

Who owns Child B's house? If it's been gifted to B that should be taken into account too as they have essentially had their inheritance already.

Split evenly, do not talk to child D about it, if they want to they can volunteer to give cash to their sibs.