Should two adult children be treated differently re inheritance, because one has children and the other one does not, by choice or not?

[fungipie]

I would argue that they should both be treated the same.

It doesn't work just dividing between children either. £200k, divided between two. One child has one of the grandchildren and the other has five. If the children are able to pass the money down to the grandchildren then five children will inherit £20k and their cousin £100k.

It is what it is babes x

That’s fair. If you have 5 children it’s a natural consequence that whatever resources you have are going to be distributed more thinly.

I was wondering this.

It's the five grandchildren getting the consequence, they weren't the ones who chose the family size. I think some money directly to grandchildren helps equalise things, though there's no perfect way. That's why it's up to the person to decide.

Misleading title

The thread you are referring to was not about treating children differently in the first place.

They should be treated the same. A lot of people say they are childfree by choice when they might not be, and this would add even more hurt. But even so, it should be equal. I would expect my sister to provide for her own children from her own windfall (and they will also be getting substantial amounts from their other grandparents). We are very open about the subject and I know my mum and sister feel the same.

But out of those 5 grandchildren maybe only 1 produces a great grandchild.

The only child cousin has 9 offspring.

The great grandchildren are ’getting the consequence’. Where does it end?

That's just how it is surely?

They should be treated the same.

I this the continuation of the previous thread? Childless child left destitute while the other profited greatly by an early inheritance towards her children's private schooling? That father originally wanted the childless daughter to inherit about the equal amount.

in the previous thread, the parent first gave the childless child a deposit for a house, so define "destitute"...and the parent gave money to grand-children, not the sibling.

Assets then went away in care home and unpaid loan.

It was not about unfair inheritance at all but it really triggers some posters, kids sent to private school, the horror.

My Granny will was split fairly between her children - not all are in the same financial position, one more wealthy than the others. Some paid their mortgages off some haven’t , some have more children one has none. Regardless it’s split fairly.

My cousin who is very close to Gran, she is the only Grandchild mentioned in the will, she is receiving an amount and some jewellery. Not a single one of the other grandchildren would mind - she deserves it. They have a lovely bond not driven by money.

It's up to the person writing the will if they wish to leave money to grandchildren (or great grandchildren) they know while they are alive. I think children should generally be treated the same as each other, and grandchildren the same as other grandchildren. Unless circumstances mean a person needs the money more, like disability. I don't think giving money to grandchildren is unfair to children. It's up to the person to decide though.

If a person decides to give some money to grandchildren so their children get equal amounts but less, than that's just how it is too.

We’ll split it equally.

We’re raising our children to be responsible
for their own choices and wear the cost of them. Any money from us is a bonus equally shared, not something to depend on. I hope we haven’t raised them to take and take and take to support their own life choices as happened in the other thread.

They should be treated the same and left to decide what they do with it irt any DC's they have. To expect more just because a person has DC of their own is just grabby IMO.

My sister has 4 kids and I have 2. I genuinely wouldn’t care if my parents split their estate 6 ways between the grandkids. If I had a sibling who didn’t have kids I’d maybe expect them to be dealt in amongst the grandkids…. Possibly so each descendant regardless of generation gets equal… in this case 3 kids + 6 grandkids so everyone gets one ninth. Even tho that would mean my sisters side of the family get four ninths

I think it's fine to reduce the amount children get in order to leave something to grandchildren - if the parents had more children, the amount left to each child would also reduce. I don't have grandchildren yet but IME grandparents care just as much for grandchildren as they do for their children, and it's fair to recognise them in their own right.

I do think (except in the case of disability) each child should receive the same amount, and each grandchild should receive the same amount. No one should be penalised or benefitted for their decision to have children, or for the number of siblings they have.

My gran split her will evenly between us all eg my aunt, cousin, my mum, my sibling and I.

we all got exactly the same amount.

I think the sum left to the children should be equal. So if everything is left to them, 50-50.

But I don't think it's unfair to directly leave inheritances to the grandchildren themselves. So if say two grandkids were each left 10%, the remaining 80% should be split evenly between the children.

We have this situation. I have two kinds, my sister has none (by choice).

We are treated exactly the same in my parents will.

But they have decided to also leave £10k each, to each of my children.

My sister is unhappy about this: she sees it as me ‘getting’ €20k more than her. I kind saw her point when the children were young, but as they are now 17 and 14 I think they will be adults in their own right by the time my parents pop their clogs.

it’s up to my parents who they leave their assets to.

There are no hard and fast rules about this. People can decide to do whatever they like with their money.

Potentially yes but it's all fact dependent and what position is approaching death and the erelationships with the children.

Relaations with the children - it doesn't follow that all children are 'equal' in the eyes of the parents or will have good/loving relationships. I don't think Lizzie Borden's parents would be rushing to give her a chunky inheritance if they had survived. JOking but you take the point. It does happen that some children are absolutely abusive to their parents - and that can happen whether they have children or are childless.

Age of the grandchild and relations with grandchildren - if the grandchildren are adults, grandparent may by that point have independent relationships with them and better relttions with some rather than others and want to give one or more different sums. They may 'factor' that in to what they leave to their own children vs grandchildren. If grandchildren are v. young, more likely to leave money to parents for them to sort out.

Amount of money involved, wealth of relative parties - if parent has an average amount and one of the children is Bill Gates, may as well leave it all to the poverty stricken other child. If very wealthy, may be tax advantages in leaving the share to their child who has children all to the grandchildren (taxed once rather than taxed twice on death of their own child).

Care - childless adult child is far more likely to be heavily involved in care - sometimes giving up income and job and whole life to care for infirm parents. They will take a heavy financial hit without expectation if they aren't working or working reduced hours usually so it's not uncommon for a parent in that situation to address that 'loss' they have 'caused' (inverted commas as it's not their fault) to the carer sibling in inheritance - sort of to 'do right' by the one that has looked after them.

Single adult child (no family of their own) is potentially (subject to their own income/financial status) in old age/future than the one with children/family who will have an extended family most likely to offer help and support. Parent may want to leave a bit more to the single one to give them a bit more old age secuirty.

Lots of variables so I'd say it depends but there could be lots of reasons why it is fairer to not divide 50/50.

No - definitely not. It has the potential to cause a great deal of hurt and fracture in the family, even if it remains hidden (the hurt) - regardless of financial status.

I think all AC should be treated the same, with perhaps a proportionately small sum going to GC first e.g. 1% to each grandchild and rest split equally between AC.

If it can be afforded, any financial levelling is best done before death e.g. If you give child A £10K for a wedding put £10K in account/ISA (at the same time) ready for child B when they get married. If by age 40 you have children who haven't needed money for house deposits/wedding then give it to them then. Be very open/transparent about this with all children that this is the process. I don't think it is great to give child A £10K in 2003 for a wedding and then say in your will that child B (unmarried) is to get £10K more when you die (...in 2041!).