AIBU to want our wills to prioritise children over grandparents and siblings

[LauraTheExplorer89]

My DH and I are writing our wills. We have a 3.5 year old and 1 year old and have decided that the best parental guardian for our children would be my mum. She already lives a 2 min walk away, has the kids a few times a week and is an excellent grandmother. My husband's parents are 10 years older than my mum and live 3 hours away and although they love the kids and are great at reading to them and playing, they are not as engaging/hands on with the tougher routine stuff and we agree that they would not be the obvious choice compared to mum. Despite this, husband has said he feels guilty and wants them included in the will as wouldn't want them to feel left out. What do people usually do here? I've explained to him I feel like it's better to be as clear as possible as we don't want all of the grandparents debating who will be responsible for the children if the worst were to happen to us. Further, I definitely feel like what is best for the kids would be to have my mum care for them with her being much closer to them, logistically and in relationship.

In addition to this, he's said he thinks he wants to leave some money to each of his 3 older siblings in our will. For context, my husband is only one with children and it's likely this will remain the case. All of his siblings work and now have decent jobs, although, none own a house and his oldest sibling actually still lives at home. My husband and his siblings are all very likely to inherit a decent amount of money from his parents (probably £200k each) so at some point hopefully they'll all be able to get on the property ladder if that's what they want to do. My husband and I own our house with a mortgage and took out life insurance policies when we had children. We would not have as much money as his parents in comparison to pass on and I would like all of what we have to go to our two children. Is it normal to leave money in your will to siblings? I also have a younger sibling who with his wife (they don't have children yet) is in a similar financial situation to me and my husband and I told my husband that we would definitely expect to be included in each other's wills to which he agreed that we shouldn't leave money to my brother as he doesn't need it. I think I reacted quite strongly which upset my husband but I'm just not sure where he's coming from on this one.

I know of a case where the unthinkable did happen. The mum was killed and the kids went to live with her mum. They were about 11 and 13 at the time. It really did not go well - perhaps it never would have- and both kids were troubled. They had to move areas hundreds of miles, and the grandma was already a carer for the disabled grandad. She wasn’t old. Maybe 60 at the time when the teens came to live with her. I would strongly suggest siblings as guardians. This is what my relative picked when she was having life-threatening/saving surgery. She arranged for the DC to live with her sister, in a different country, should the worst happen. The sister had four children her own but was happy to take the nieces if needed. (She was living abroad, the sister was in the UK).

The guardianship thing is a no brainer, obviously you would give your mum a heads up and there is absolutely no reason to inform anyone else of your decision anyway, so there is no "guilt", as it will be after you are gone, he needs to give his head a wobble over that one.. no decisions should ever be made because of guilt or obligation.. it should 100% be about what is best for the child/children.

I do worry about people who would rather make things fairer to their parents and siblings then prioritise their own children, but maybe because they are so small he doesn't see them as 'people' in their own right. Maybe agree a "nominal sum" for the siblings and include your brother too.. it sounds like he wants to do it as a good will gesture rather than having any sort of windfall for them, so I'm sure you could agree on a sum for that, it's half his decision after all, so you do need to compromise somewhere, unless he has something of value to leave like a collection etc? But if he goes first you need to make sure you can honour it!

I don't agree with either of your husbands suggestions here. If they lose their parents your kids will need all of the money. And nominate who you want to have the kids. That's more important than worrying about his presumably fairly elderly parents getting offended in the very unlikely case you both die before they do.

@LauraTheExplorer89 - you say "My DH and I are writing our wills..."

I hope you aren't and that you have a suitably qualified legal professional (a solicitor if in the UK) drafting them for you. If you get your wills wrong you can't correct them after you die.

From the wording in your first post you only seem to be considering what should happen if you both die together, but you need to plan both for that AND what should happen in the more likely event of one of you pre-deceasing the other.

You REALLY need to engage an appropriately qualified legal professional to advise you and to draft the will so that after you die it will achieve your wishes.

They will have encountered all these scenarios before and will be able to advise you on the pros and cons of different approaches to your wills and how to get what you want

Don't assume you can DIY. My wife and i have three law degrees between us and she is a solicitor. When we got married we drafted our own wills and a couple of years later realised that we'd fucked them up. We then went to a solicitor to pay to get the job done properly. And our wills are nowhere near as complex as your situation sounds

And it's very unusual to leave anything to siblings unless you are childless - which your husband obviously isn't.

I'd definitely want to talk to him some more about leaving money to the siblings - how often is he proposing to review their financial position and update the will? Ie. If one of his siblings marries someone wealthy, gets a significantly better job than the others, your brother develops a gambling addiction and loses his house etc, will he be paying to change the will to make it fair? I imagine not 🙄

I'd also be concerned that if you were to pass first (assuming you'll be leaving any assets directly to him) then when he dies an even bigger share might be given to his siblings instead of the children. Which is definitely something I wouldnt be happy about.

Your DH is being a bit strange about this. Wills can, and should be updated. Right now you are considering the future of two very young children should the worst happen to you both. Those young children will be much more impacted by your passing than siblings, so all assets should be used to protect the kids financially.
Your mum being close by means nursery/school/friends 'could' stay as they are, again a decision that protects young children as much as possible.

His parents can still hold a role in your kids future.

I would encourage wills to be reviewed at least every 10yrs.

How much does your husband want to leave to his three older siblings? That would be a pretty unusual thing to do. Do you know why he wants to do that? Surely you should both want to leave your assets to your own children.

Your husband seems terrified that his family are being left out so is insisting on things that don't seem practical, such as expecting his much older parents to care for your children if you die.

This is something quite close to home for me as my mum is leaving money to adult relatives which I have to say I find strange considering I’m one of 3 siblings and she has 7 grandchildren!

You can't know that, at 75 my dad had quite advanced dementia and he died 3 years later. DH's dad died at 65 from cancer that was only diagnosed a couple of years previous (I know this can happen at any age, but it's much more common over 60). His mum and mine are both mid-70s and are struggling with physical health conditions which mean they struggle to do too much. Mt Dm is also having eyesight issues that mean she won't be able to drive much longer. Depending where you live that could be a big issue caring for teens.

You mention that you have life assurance for your children.
Will it give a lump sum or rather an income for X years, say to youngest
's 21?Either way on your deaths it will form part of your estate unless you have already written it in trust, naming the beneficiaries etc.

It is important to write life assurance in trust because otherwise the money may not be released until probate is done, which may take a long time. If it is written in trust it will be paid out very quickly as soon as the assurance company is notified of your death. Most companies have specialist departments which will advise you how to add a trust document to an existing policy.

There is an argument about whether a policy giving a tax free set or rising income over say 20 years+ to cover the children's higher education eg, is better ( much cheaper btw) than a tax free lump sum, whose proceeds may become taxable. Is it a joint policy ( ie paid out on the first death of you and your husband ) or do you have separate ones?
Only you can decide which fits your circumstances the best.

Everything gets left in trust for your children. The money is used to provide everything they need until they are 18 where they would then be given any remaining funds/assets (I wanted older as 18 is not responsible enough IMO, but my solicitor said they can challenge and win control, so I didn’t see the point in trying to override that). My parents and sibling are trustees for my DC in this scenario and my home would either be used by whoever is looking after my children to house them all or rented out and the income added to the trust for DC benefit.

I have my sibling and DCs godparents listed as guardians (depending on who is able to care for them and where they want to be should that time ever come). I put more than one guardian down as I don’t know what their circumstances would be at the time if I died suddenly and I would want DC to be able to have a say in who will take care of them.

You’re right OP, and maybe the solicitor or will provider can talk your husband through this. If he didn’t make a will, his assets would go to you as next of kin, or if you were already dead they’d go to his children.
It’s unusual for assets to go to siblings rather than children. Maybe ask him if he’s comfortable with his assets then being passed to the siblings’ future children on their deaths, rather than to his own children? He just hasn’t thought it through.

I remember when I made my first will pre-kids I left sums to my parents and sister. My updated will leaves it to my husband and children (with house in trust so it goes to my kids rather than any future wife of my husband if I die first.)

As your husband matures he will probably naturally change his tune.

The usual thing to do is to leave all of your assets to DC, not to brothers and sisters.

The only reason to go further afield down the family tree is for the provision that all 4 of you die in a tragic accident together. That’s when nieces and nephews or siblings are usually included.

As far as guardianship goes, I would only discuss it with the person who you want to be the guardian. Chances of you and your DH dying in an accident together are pretty slim, so no point in getting involved in a family drama over something that is not likely to happen.

Get legal advice. DH being a dick.

Everything in trust to the children. Guardians are normally siblings or very close family friends IME-why would you name grandparents who will hopefully live a long life but should in the normal scheme of things die before you?

It’s a bit insane that your DH has an issue. All your monies, in the event of you both dying, should be allocated to your children, end of. If there are any personal items you want to leave - eg your grandmothers engagement ring going to your sister, or some item of sentimental value to a certain family member, then it’s fine to leave them that object as a token gift, but otherwise no - you do not leave stuff to siblings or any other family members unless you have no children.

Yes - we have a ‘wipeout clause’ in our will - if we and our now adult children were to die together THEN, and only then, would our estate be divided equally between surviving siblings. Otherwise everything is held in trust until DC are 30.

100% of your assets go to your own children, with the exception of minor charitable bequests if you can afford it. It is reasonable to allow that the relative who is going to be their guardian should be able to use a proportion of the capital to buy a larger home if their current home is too small for 2 extra children, but that would need to be tied up in such a way that the capital amount plus any appreciation in value is returned to your children eventually once they are adults.

You don't leave a penny to siblings or parents unless the amount of your estate is so huge that your children will never need to work a day in their lives if they inherit it all.

It is reasonable to have a clause that in the event that your children are also deceased (say the whole family perishes in a horrific fire or motorway smash) then parents and siblings may have it.

Why would your husband want to leave money to his siblings and not his own children? If I was his child and I heard that I would feel rejected and that I was less important than his siblings. By doing that he’s making his priorities clear - his wider family and not his own who apparently are less important. Why is he worried about what his family think?

Re guardianship, I don’t get it - you prioritise your children and think who is best to raise them if you’re not around. Thats your mum for the reasons you set out. Not a couple that live 3 hours away who are in the 70s. His siblings have said they don’t want children so why have them as a back-up?

He should consider your children’s needs first and use some logic. If he’s worried about favouring your family, then leave a special token gift that has meaning to them in the will…

I have 4 sisters and DH has 2 brothers. We made our wills as soon as we married and have updated them as necessary over the many years since then. It has never once crossed our minds to leave anything to our siblings in our wills. As parents our overriding responsibility must always be to our children and grandchildren.

Is your DH is worried about his family losing touch with the DC? I'm divorced, so it's unlikely XH and I would both die at the same time. When writing my will, I specified a sum to be put aside, to be managed by my DSis and a close friend, for the purpose of covering transport costs for my family to visit DC, stay in hotels, etc. If I die and DC end up with XH full time, it might be harder for my side of the family to keep in touch with them.

Could be something to consider if that's what's behind your DH's concerns there.

Leaving money to siblings when you have dependent children seems a bit odd to me unless you're extremely wealthy. It would take all my assets to care for my DC if something happened to both XH and me. And I'd want my estate to help DC through uni or put down a deposit on a house in future if I died and they moved in with XH permanently.

Very strange, are you totally loaded? Otherwise it all goes to the kids. Why would adults without kids need it?

I don’t think it’s usual to leave anything to siblings if you have dc. I don’t have dc, so our wills leave everything to our 4 niblings, 2 on each side.

Likewise. I could cope with a few hundred each to treat themselves to something to remember me by, or similar, but it would have to be a token amount.

Unless you are insanely wealthy, it is extremely rare to leave all your money to anyone other than your children.