To think SIL should have checked with us before putting us down as carers for her son in her will?

[BillHadersNewWife]

Is it usual to ask before putting someone down as preferred guardian for your child??

DH informed me that sil told him she had asked her son who he wanted to take care of him if she died and he chose us...I mean...that's a huge ask isnt it?

Am I a complete bitch for thinking oh hell no! Honestly I didn't say much to DH but in my heart, I really don't want that responsibility. But I know dh would. So ...I suppose I'm just meant to accept it?

Yes, it's usual to ask before writing this down in a will.
The chances of this ever being needed are very small though.
How old is this child whose decided this though and what if he changes his mind later on?

My SiL did the exact same thing with our two nieces. We live 150 miles away and have two young kids ourselves. I wasn't amused that we weren't consulted at all given the gravity and legality of the decision.

Not every child has godparents? And automatically giving children to godparents would mean splitting up siblings so it doesn't really make sense. Plus a godmother who is a single parent with 2 kids of her own may not be the best pick over a sibling in a relationship with a child and good incomes, it all just depends.
I'm assuming the whole process has to go to court to be legally appointed a guardian anyway, you can't just leave your child to someone in a will.
OP as you use the word carer rather than guardian, does the child have additional needs? If so that's another factor in anyone's decision around such an arrangement

Has she included the costs of care in her will for you to look after her son?

You don't need to respond if it's a struggle.

You can explain why you're right and other people are wrong as much as you like.

But that doesn't make your subjective beliefs factual.

As I said, I agree with you. But it's an opinion, not a fact. People arguing the other way are similarly using opinions and not facts.

The number of reasons it would be completely physically impossible to take a child in are actually very few. Beyond that it's choice.

I've stated facts. There are loads of genuine reasons why taking on/in another person's child just isn't possible. There's no getting round that.
It's not a struggle for me to explain over and over, but it's a tad pointless. Tschüss.

I’d assume we’d take care of any of our siblings’ children, should the worst happen. Same with the DC of cousins if needed. Wouldn’t hesitate. Our siblings would do the same.

A child has been orphaned and needs a home. A close relative has the opportunity to take them but refuses because it won’t work for them financially or practically or geographically. Those are the facts.

But the facts alone aren’t a true representation of the situation - you can’t just ignore the emotion. The child is traumatised and bereaved. They need a loving and stable home. Those are the emotions and they’re highly relevant.

If you add in other potential factors, such as the child expresses a wish to go to relative or the parents did before they died, then it’s even more so. If the alternative for the child care, then it’s off the chart.

I think people ought to ask - we asked all our siblings about it before making our wills. First choice was BIL and family as they live nearby with kids about the same age, and they said 'OK' but with reservations as they were already down as guardians, should the worst happen, for two sets of friends' kids (both sets of friends had family scenarios meaning they didn't want them to be guardians).

In the end we found we didn't have to specify and the executors (our siblings) and kids could decide should the worst happen - the kids are teens now and old enough to have their own opinions and honestly what would work for them could change from year to year at this age with the life stages they are at.

What? Why would I drop my husband off at the divorce lawyer because he doesn’t want to take on someone elses kids. Bizzare!

My SIL asked us and we said no. She already had many children and who knows how many more she would've had after we had agreed. The reason we said no was we wouldn't have had the capacity to have our own children if we took hers on. Or if we did have children we wouldn't possibly be able to raise them how we would want to.
If there were less than three children we would've considered it.

You’re absolutely right. He can make his own way there!

No, you've stated reasons that could be considered either way. Some people would agree with you, that they're good, genuine reasons and others (as evidenced by this thread) would disagree. But the vast majority are not reasons that make it factually impossible to take in a child.

(As I said before things like being in prison/on the space station/in a hostage situation would make it physically impossible to take custody of a child).

DH would so you'd have no choice, apart from leaving.

Because someone who would put children, who are his own flesh and blood, in care rather than look after them after the loss of their parents is not the kind of person most people would want to be married to?

I’ve recently gone through this as we’ve had wills done and yes, I asked my sister first if she would be happy looking after our child in those circumstances and she agreed. On the other hand, my partner asked his sister and she said no. Guardianship in wills is such a hypothetical situation that most likely (and god forbid) would never happen so to say no to this just blows my mind. It has caused my view on her to change because she is basically saying she would rather our child go into care than her look after him. You are entitled to your feelings and may not particularly want that responsibility but I just think looking after family, if you are able to do so, is more important.

Yes that's how I feel.

I know people who have grown up in care, and they always say they wouldn't put a dog through that.

A will is a statement of wishes, and is not legally binding on any nominated executors, guardians, trustees or even beneficiaries (beneficiaries can decline a bequest and the will is then enacted as if they had not been named).

It's really not worth worrying about - if the situation arises, address it then, treating the will as just one part of the picture (=how your in-laws were thinking at the time they made it).

It’s a huge complement, that a child looked around him and decided that if the worst thing imaginable happened you and his uncle are the people he would want to care for him

yes she should have asked
but she’s probably not actually imagining she will die.
nor that her brother would refuse her request

It's not legally binding nor an obligation, it's a stated preference. In the massively unlikely scenario that it is needed, the OP and her DH would make the decision at the time.

Guardian and carer are different anyway - it doesn't mean the child should or must live with them.

I came here to say this.

And children are not possessions to be bequeathed anyway. That isn't how it works.

You’re splitting hairs. The poster clearly meant that she would take in her nieces and nephews if it came to it regardless of whether her husband stayed around or not.

They don’t need to agree on this. They can each make their own decision on it should the time come.

Not that you can answer but in senarios like this I'm genuinely interested to know that although the DF isn't in the DC life could/would he be given priority if he wanted to have the DC.

We’ve been named in BIL’s will to be guardians of DH’s nephew should something happen to both parents - slightly more likely than average due to the nature of the parent’s professions but still not something I see happening really. DH was asked, I wasn’t.

I think it’s absolutely the wrong call given we live on the other side of the world and have met this child once (hopefully again next year too but still). I think it’s the wrong call for the child - can you imagine being bereaved and then uprooted to a country that you’ve spent no time in with people you barely know. I can’t actually imagine it would even be allowed to go ahead in those circumstances, and I think the child’s mother’s family would probably have something to say about it.

DH wanted to make it a reciprocal thing to name them in our statement of wishes - that one I absolutely did put my foot down on. We have had a few heated debates about it actually - he has a complete blind spot on this and thinks it would be the best option should something happen to us (because the kids would grow up together and BIL and his wife are very well off I think is his thinking) but it’s totally bonkers to me and won’t be happening.

Because he is only 10 years older than his brother (oldest is15 currently) and I feel it's not his responsibility to live with decisions I made. Don't get me wrong he is amazing with him and I would always hope he cares for him and looks out for his wellbeing. But I can't ask him to give up his life and future for one of wheelchairs, nappy changes and stress.