To think about evening things out between the kids

[MyKindHiker]

I have a bit of a dilemma. I have two sons, 7 and 9. The elder one last year was in a nasty accident (not his fault) and has received a substantial insurance payout as a result. He's all recovered now thank heavens. By law this goes into a trust fund until he's 18, by which point it will be a pretty big chunk of money.

I was thinking about what this means for my younger son, and whether I should try to make provisions for him to match a similar amount for when he's 18, as it feels unfair one child having a head start over the other in terms of being able to put down a deposit on a house, or pay for university without taking out loans etc.

I do put money into trust funds for both of them already, but if I wanted to 'top up' the younger son, I'd have to funnel all money into younger one's fund. If I got to the point where it was equalised I'd of course then continue to put anything extra equally for both.

I'm not sure what is the right approach. Should I try and make sure their start in adult life is 'fair' or evened out, or would by elder son feel it was unfair his brother getting a handout from mum where he didn't, even if the amounts were the same. Genuinely on the fence about it.

Would I be unreasonable to make extra provisions for the youngest?

Evening it out will be seen by the child who had an accident as having to share his compensation. That’s the practical result of “evening it out”. He may be resentful because he suffered.
You can’t even out the fact one had a bad injury and the other didn’t. You shouldn’t try to do that about the compensation either.

Will you be evening out the nasty accident, too?

I think I would be prepared to give the younger one a hand with a deposit or whatever if they need it, but wait and see what happens.

It's hard to say without knowing the amount. I would agree with saving some money in an account of your own and reassessing when they are 18/20.

Fwiw my ex was knocked over by a car when he was a child, he was totally fine when I knew him and it really hadn't affected him, he used his payout for uni.

I would definitely take some steps to even it out though, starting off adulthood on uneven footing will make a big difference to their lives.

If you even it out it will probably be seen by the elder boy as either a) my parents took half of my compensation or b) my parents loved my brother more as they saved up and gave him £££ and didn’t give me anything.

It’s his money for a horrible situation he went through. My friend’s little sister got a medical payout for negligence and she was only pleased for her as she knew what her sister had endured as a result of the accident. Hopefully your younger boy will grow up to understand the same, your job isn’t to even things out it’s to raise him to have enough empathy to understand what happened. If you can support both boys by saving too, so much the better.

Yes to PTSD or arthritis years later linked to the injury.

My dh who ‘completely’ healed from his childhood injury gets flares linked to it now he is in his late 60’s.

I would speak to the elder one about it. Does he know about the pay out? Explain that he’ll have this money but obviously his brother was affected by the upheaval too, and you think it’s reasonable to even them up a bit, I’m sure he’ll understand. Start saving for no2 and have the conversation again in a few years.

Just want to add, it’s a tough one and I understand you are working out what’s best for both of them. I’d focus on making sure they won’t ever feel that you have treated them unequally.

Could you reduce what you pay into the eldest's account and add more to the younger? That way you haven't stopped topping up the eldest's.

You can’t even it out unless you’re going to break your other son’s leg/arm or mimic whatever injury he suffered. The compensation was given to him for a reason, for an adverse experience.It’s nothing like winning the lottery. It’s to make up for a loss in some way, a loss, a harm and/or trauma that was caused. It’s far from good fortune. Your other son has(thankfully) not suffered the same so why should he receive money? And you don’t know how it may affect him in the future. Speaking as someone who suffered an accident which I received compensation for while still technically a child and who still has problems over 20 years later.

I wouldn't stop adding to the eldest's though, he didn't ask for the accident to happen.

This is actually really interesting, I will ask my older DCs when they get in later and see what they would have liked

If the child who had the accident really is fully recovered with no long term impact then I’d try to even it out a bit. Not totally, but so that they are not in completely different places as they start adult life.

I’m so intrigued where this ends though, if one of your children had been kidnapped and received compensation for that would you feel it should be shared with his brother? Or a different scenario, if he was a child model who earned a decent amount of money should half of that go to his brother?

I think the idea of these boys getting to adulthood and elder one getting £x for his injury and the younger getting £x from his parents just because they love him - it doesn’t sit right with me at all. I think while it may seem “unfair” the fairest way is always to treat your children the same in terms of what you can do for them.

I don't think it should be evened out. Your son must have had an unpleasant accident and this is compensation for that. If you want to put slightly extra in the other's account then do but I don't think you should be giving them both the same.

I agree with you

Come on op. I can generally see where you are coming from but don’t think you should equalise it. Little brother doesn’t wish it was him. And you saying there were months where a healthy little boy could swim and ride but his brother couldn’t come with him due to severe injury is a not a reason to work harder to compensate the healthy one.

I was responding to a question as to whether it was hard for my youngest. It was. That's not in my opinion a reason for the financial thing. The reason for the financial thing would be that it feels harsh one would have a financial advantage the other didn't. But I see the arguments both ways. Hence the thread!

Oh god I don't want to think about that.

The financial advantage is directly related to the harm he suffered.

I would honestly never forgive my parents in your eldest’s shoes. What you’d essentially be saying to him is, “Well yes darling, I know you had a traumatic accident and lost four months of your childhood, but what about your brother?” It would make it pretty clear to me who the golden child in the family was.

This could cause major resentment between your children too. It’s not your younger son’s decision, but he might face consequences from your choice too. Sure, he starts out in life with more money, but he does so knowing his older brother resents him because he essentially got it just for existing.

You’re worrying that it isn’t “fair” for your younger son not to have the same financial start in life, but you don’t seem worried that Son 1 might think it more than a little unfair that Son 2 is effectively benefiting from HIS accident and trauma.

Very fair point.

I can see the arguement both ways and I see why you are thinking about it. But on balance, I would not try to equalise this.

I think I would look to retain control of a reasonable portion of your savings so you can make judgement calls for both boys as they grown up and go through life, maybe one will need help with a deposit/one is on a low wage and needs a car/counselling for either of them etc.

However, imagine explaining your thought process to two adults. It will either be "we treated you equally with these savings, but made sure we were in a position to help either of you based on need". Or - "We saved unequally for you to match the payment DC1 received for his traumatic injury for DC2.". I think option one would be much easier to justify to most people.

The reason for the financial thing would be that it feels harsh one would have a financial advantage the other didn't.

It would be harsh to give one child a financial advantage and not the other. You haven’t given your eldest son anything.

Oh god I don't want to think about that.

Well perhaps you should start before deciding he doesn’t really need anything from you because he has his compensation.

I would probably put money aside and assess the situation when the time comes.

You can't help how they'd feel and that depends on personalities. I know I'd be happy to have had the financial boost, regardless of a sibling receiving similar from parentd, but if it was the other way round I'm pretty sure my sibling would resent the fact his money came from a payout and mine came from parents.

I would talk to the boys. Explain everything just as you have here, OP. See what they want to do, you might be surprised. So long as it is transparent, I think the paying into one account more than the other may work.

So much bad feeling is caused when parents present money decisions to their children as a fait accompli, without involving the children.