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.

If the adult dc get the same then they ARE being treated the same. If separate amounts are also given to GC that's nothing to do with what was given to the adult children

The main thing that causes issues would be families not talking about death, wills and inheritance. You would think that if the brothers were spoken to the wealthier one would have no issue with his father leaving a larger share to the ‘ordinary’ son. Creating a bit more equity within the family. There are some circumstances where it would make sense to give more to one child over another.

Ok. And then perhaps a tally should have been kept from birth. The dc who cost more:activities, sports, clubs, therapy, medical etc should get less inheritance 🙄

So no one else should inherit if there are dc? No charities, no siblings, no dearest friend, no kindly neighbour who did so much for them..no one. Just the dc.

You do realise dgc are separate people. They aren't the same person as their parent.

People frequently leave something to nieces/nephews/siblings/charities etc.

Why in Gods name are people being so weird about this.

Lots of sibling rivalry perhaps. People who have spent their whole life counting who got more cookies 🙄

You’ve missed my point which I probably should have made better. An example: If you have 3 children and the two eldest have grandchildren. Mum and dad have provided child care for those grandchildren saving their children from the expense of nursery fees. If child 3 hasn’t started their family yet (and ultimately we don’t know whether they will have children) mum and dad know that they are not going to be in a position to give that child and any prospective grandchildren the same as the older siblings had. Therefore they could make a provision for childless sibling to inherit a bit more to allow for this. Just a suggestion, some may think it’s a bit out there but I don’t think it’s completely unreasonable. Btw my family circumstances do not resemble this scenario. I just think that if my younger sibling was in this position and my parents suggested it I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Exactly. Why should a person care that they didn't get free childcare for nonexistent children? One adult child may need dog or cat sitting, transport to medical appointments, any number of things.

Adult children should get the same. It's then up to the adult with children to cascade their share down to their children.

My responsibility is to look after (all) my children, their responsibility is to look after their children. I saw with my grandparents leaving unequal split and the wrenching pain of my parent feeling rejected (again). Before my parents died, they were thinking about leaving a greater split to the 2 offspring who looked after them (I was one). Both my sibling and I said no - you are their parents (albeit with different working relationships), everyone gets the same. I can sleep easily with that.

One of the reasons why inheritance is complicated is that people refuse to make plans. They become old and confused. This then opens the door for vindictive, grabby family members.

Whoever writes a will can leave their assets to whoever they want. You are not obliged to leave your wealth fairly divided.

You could the whole lot just to grandchildren

You could leave the whole lot to a Fairy Garden charity

You should leave your inheritance to your children - you brought them into the world, so help them out. It's up to them whether they give any money to their own children who they chose to bring into the world. Leaving money to grandchildren is such a slap in the face to the generation in between.

But as her father made the bad investments himself, when he was in control of his finances and had the capacity to do so, is it still OPs responsibility to make sure her sister knows about them years down the line?

How do we know her father didn't discuss them with her at the time? My parents would tell both of us if they moved. We'd both know where to, we'd both be able to do whatever research we wanted to. We're both able to look at market values.

It's not my responsibility to make sure my sister understands the implications of my parents financial decisions, until the time it's probably me making them as their POA. It's not OPs responsibility to make sure her sister understands that her father deciding with his own money and capacity to buy a retirement flat costs money, that there's fees associated with them when selling them on or that they often lose money.

The person inheriting doesn’t, I’m talking about the parents factoring it into what they leave each child as per my explanation at 08:18.

This.

I have DC, my sister does not. She has had more physical, emotional and financial support from my parents than I have. Because she's needed it. There might come a time when I need more. But having children or not doesn't factor into it, and what support we've needed doesn't factor into it either.

They love us the same. They treat us fairly, which doesn't always mean equally. It just means they make sure we get what we need.

Honestly, the way things are in the world, I think I'd rather they gave it to my DD. I'm on my feet. She's going to need help, which I'm aiming to be able to give her but can't guarantee. Seeing her set up would mean more to me.

I would consider grandchildren to be an extension of a child’s household. Whether a person leaves directly to grandchildren or to children I think it should be that the household amount is the same. I think grandparents should (unless good reasons not to) just give to children and leave them to distribute to the GC’s. There are obviously some exceptions to this but I think it is a fair rule that just stops causing any problems. Clearly grandparents can choose not to leave their family anything - up them!

Surely it depends on the family dynamic?

I spent a lot of time one on one with some of my grandparents. I would visit them on my own. Other grandchildren did it didn't, depending on their own relationships with them. If they were still around today, I would definitely still go spend time with them. My siblings/cousins wouldn't necessarily.

Now, I'm not saying I should get any inheritance or that other grandchildren shouldn't. But different family members have different relationships. I have a bond with one of my uncles that my sister doesn't (and no, nothing untoward, my mum's family is younger than my dad's so I spent time with my dad's brother and his family as a child, whereas my younger sister was more often with my mum's side). When we eventually lose him, undoubtedly my sister will be sad but for me it'll be like losing another grandparent. My mum's sister is loads younger than her and is therefore more like my elder sister than my aunt.

To be clear, I do not want not expect any money from any of them. But what I do know is that my relationship with those family members will be considered differently to others nieces or nephews. By me and them.

Therefore, some grandparents may wish to leave something to grandchildren with whom they have a close bond. Others may see them as an extension of their children. And either is ok.

@Drfosters

I would consider grandchildren to be an extension of a child’s household. Whether a person leaves directly to grandchildren or to children I think it should be that the household amount is the same. I think grandparents should (unless good reasons not to) just give to children and leave them to distribute to the GC’s. There are obviously some exceptions to this but I think it is a fair rule that just stops causing any problems. Clearly grandparents can choose not to leave their family anything - up them!
So you count people as households? I think that's so weird. I count people as individuals.

If my gc were young adults starting out adult life with deposits for houses etc I don't see them as an extension of anyone.

My relationship with them is as individuals. If I say fell out with my dc (the dgc parent) I wouldn't therefore have fallen out with my dgc. They are separate relationships.

Just as I may leave something to a charity or siblings.

I would leave my dc equal amounts and would leave other individuals various amounts. My dgc would my some of those individuals that I would leave amounts to.

Dgc are often adults by the time people pass.

My relationship with my dgc is separate to my relationship with my dc. If I fell out with my dc (which I have no likelihood of doing) I wouldn't then have no relationship with my adult or near adult dgc.

Like with my siblings and nieces and nephews whom I may also leave something to, my dgc are completely separate individuals and not some extension of their parents

@UnpackingBooksFromBoxes

I think there is a huge difference when the dgc are very young and some siblings have not had dc but plan to compared to situations where everyone is a lot older and the siblings without dc are never going to have any.

Because the OP wrote about their 3 adult dc and one choosing to be child free I looked more along that line. Where no more gc were ever going to eventuate.

I answered from a place of adult dgc with whom I would have completely separate relationships.

I would consider leaving money to nieces and nephews, siblings and charities as well as my dc. I would include my adult or near adult dgc as more individuals I would leave to. Not just see them as nothing more than an extension of their parents.

If everyone was a lot younger then I agree it would be peculiar to leave money to current very young gc but nothing for those gc who have not yet been born but probably would.

At this age the dc are so young I would t be seeing them as people responsible for their own finances so I would leave just to my dc probably

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. As it happens my father is skipping his children out of his will but giving to grandchildren. My children are getting half as much as my sibling’s child as I has 2 and they have 1. I 100% think this is the fair/equitable solution and my children should be grateful for getting anything. I can see both ways but in my mind my sibling and I are equal to my parents and so the amount distributed is equal between us.

i just think money/wills have the capacity to cause massive problems. Equality between children is the only way (unless there are exceptional circumstances) and that then extends to grandchildren.

Doesn't sound fair to me! Your children get 25% each and your sibling's child gets 50%. Your children are individuals, they didn't choose to have a sibling, and they do not benefit from each other's inheritance.

LIke you say though, wills can cause huge problems and people have different ideas on what is fair.

I agree with @Drfosters approach. Money moves down each child’s line in equal amounts and gets split as needed. More children means it has to be split more.

This is not at all what I am saying. Give to charities, or whomever- but if you give to your children, it should be the same for all of them.

Exactly, each should get a third!