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.

I had a thread on here about this recently.

My sibling and me were given an equal amount in my lone parent's will.

Then my 2 children were given an equal amount split between them 50/50.

I think the consensus was that this was a fair split.

In our family's case, me, my sibling, and her two grandchildren were the closest family our parent had and were equally loved.

I agree. Perhaps her DM had wanted to help the younger generation out when they needed a step on to the ladder. Now they’re waiting for their parents/aunt to die. A generation later, all being well.
Your mother should have been allowed to follow her own wishes.

I think sly every time with a few exceptions. A pp mentioned a disinherited adult child who is in prison for sexual offences. I don't think it's unreasonable to disinherit him. I also think if there is a child with life changing disabilities then there can be times where they should receive more than their healthy siblings.

Fair doesn't necessarily mean equal. One child may as well be married to a billionaire, or be a Premier League footballer, while the other may be a single parent in a rented flat. Who does need parents' house more?

I don't intend to leave anything to grandchildren at all. Everything I have (left, hopefully) will go to the three children we chose to have, equally.

Those three children of ours will have made their own choices as to how many children they have, how they support them, what lifestyle or career they have - providing for and leaving money to their own dc is their business.

Agree with the posts saying no one will be getting 'inheritance' early either. We may well choose to give lump sums as gifts but this will always be done equally or the equivalent firmly ring-fenced for the time the other dc will need the same (ie house deposit). No one will be getting their third early with other dc expected to wait years.

I find the fact that so many posters think you should be financially rewarded for caring for elderly parents wrong.

I don’t expect that. I do find it a worry that I will be homeless with my savings utilised for many home improvements to make their lives easier/better, only to find out they have a considerable nest egg they could have used.

I also find it a worry that I have historically passed up work opportunities and a relationship so that they could remain in their home without strangers looking after them and that now my own old age is so uncertain.

i think it is lovely that they are trying to make sure my sibling’s children are secure in the future.

I’m still allowed to be hurt that my life and future was considered to be worth so very little to them.

I see each person as individual.

I have 3 kids and say I left my house which was worth £300k to them to be split equally they would each get £100k worth.

If DS1 had 3 kids and DD had 2 and DS2 had none then whats left to the grandchildren is left as a result of them being separate people. Say I leave £5k cash to each grandchild out of my savings thats not taking from the £100k worth of estate each child got. I of course wouldn't leave DD an extra £5k cash and DS2 an extra £15k cash on top because they had less/no kids.

I wouldn't unfairly leave £100k to one kid and £20k to another but as long as their 'share' is equal then any other family members (including any ones birthed by one of them) are completely separate inheritors. No different than if I left those savings to an Aunt or Friend or Charity instead of my kids.

My parents are splitting everything between my siblings and I and one GC. Our DS passed away a few years ago but it’s only fair her child receives what would have been inherited by her.

Our DN is young and will most likely inherit something from myself and other siblings as they have no parents of their own alive.

My parents have clearly stated the same will happen for our DC if something was to happen to me or my siblings. GC would then receives our share.

Not necessarily - ultimately the money bequeathed is at the discretion of the bequestor. If one sibling is a millionaire and the other is struggling, as a parent I’d leave funds to the one struggling but divide special items/heirlooms more evenly. If one has had a close relationship in adulthood, but the other has buggered off, then no. Lots of reasons why a 50:50 split may seem fair but really isn’t equitable.

Here’s an example of what can happen if you leave your money to your grandchildren and not your children! Mum somehow managed to spend £50k inheritance on trips to primark and new look.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480117/amp/mother-stole-daughters-inheritance-elderly-father-recruited-help.html

If you leave money to grandchildren, as well as children, and child A has two dc, and child b has one dc, then I don’t see that as A getting more, as they’re not actually receiving grandchildren’s money.

The error was in making the parents trustees. If you leave money to grandchildren, there should be a non-parent trustee and the access to the funds should be lock up until DGC reach 18.

busy yes indeed - reading between the lines I think the mum was upset to be cut out and felt she was entitled to it as she was the sibling. Grim.

Inheritance from grandparents is likely to come at a time when grandkids could actually benefit from it I.e money for uni, starting a business or a house deposit. Adult DC are likely already establish so as much as we would all enjoy a bit of extra cash it's better used on the kids who are the extended family. I hope my parents enjoy their money and if they want to leave anything behind it is passed to DS

I find the fact that so many posters think you should be financially rewarded for caring for elderly parents wrong.

@LookWowWhatAView my point wasn't about 'being rewarded' - it's making sure that the caring child is not in a much worse position as a result of helping with care. It depends on the situation.

I know someone who basically gave up a £200,000 a year career to care for their elderly parent who'd lost a spouse and make sure that they could stay in their home and wasn't lonely. They moved in with the parent. The other option would have been residential care because live in care would have been too expensive as two carers were required.

The move-in was at the point where the child was at the top of their career and could have had 10 good years making a lot of money. They sacrificed that to help their parent have the best end of life but it spanned that crucial period of top earner - to early retirement.

A parent in that type of situation making an inheritance adjustment isn't 'rewarding' in the sense of making the caring child better off because they weren't financially capable of filling that financial hole with their own inheritance, they are just trying to do the right thing to make sure the caring child didn't pay too heavy a price over all.

No wonder she was cut out if she wasn't going to put it to any good use!

@sleepyscientist I feel the same way about dear PiL’s money, but they will likely leave to DH. I’ve asked if he would at least use it to buy a property in a trust for them that we can all use during our life time but which protects that money for the DC (and won’t mean paying IHT on it, when we leave it to them). Really wish they’d spend it on cruises to make sure the govt doesn’t take it for care costs, but MiL is absolutely resolute in a 50:50 split for DH and DSiL (which is just our kids, so they’ll also get everything from DSiL one day too as she adores them both).

Exactly the same or you are simply sowing seeds of generational division and hatred.

Treated equally

110% the same. No question. Number of grandchildren is irrelevant.

Why should you do that though? You can do what you want with your inheritance, spend it on anything you like or it may be needed for care home fees or other necessary but unexpected expenses.

When my Mum broached the subject of adding her her DGC to her will - my DCs – I told her it wouldn't be fair and that her will should be split equally between me and my childless DB. Only fair.

My nana though she was closer to my DM than her other daughter who was a half sister of my DM, but both daughters equal inheritances and it was for them to decide what they shared. She did state we got X share which was more than generous. Her other daughter though as far as I recall only had one child whereas my DM had me and DB and my nana still stated the same amount should go to him and not more. But how could she police that after she died? He had 3 children but she left them nothing as they’re her great grand children. Also my DM and our family were closer to my nana than the other DD (there were reasons some if which we found out after my nana died) so my nana always felt closer to us.

It totally depends on the circumstances, let’s say the childfree one is well off, not married and owns an expensive property (quite possible in London/South East) and is intending to leave everything to their nieces and nephews anyway, then it would be daft to leave them a large amount of money because they’d end up paying inheritance tax on it when it could be left to the grandchildren by the grandparent as ‘direct descendants’ there would be no/less inheritance tax payable.

Equal split. The alternative has ruined my life.

Treated the same. I’ve split mine equally between my kids, with their share being split between their kids if either or both of my sons predecease me.