This is going to sound rather unpleasant and unfair but here goes...
DH has a daughter from a previous marriage. Daughter is 13 and they are now mostly estranged. Without going into it, she is exceptionally difficult (verbally and physically abusive, damaged cars and smashed windows etc) and although he has tried his best, she does not want to know him or her siblings. The house she lives in with her mum and her DH is mortgage free and the daughter will be the sole beneficiary of that house when the mum eventually passes. DH was the one who paid off the mortgage when they divorced with a view of his daughter would be provided for with the house.
We have a mortgage on our house and we have children together. We are going to update our wills and set things out formally. DH wants to leave a set amount of money only to the daughter in his will, and does not want her to have a share of our home as she will benefit from her mother's home that he paid off for them. I agree to this as our DCs will be the beneficiaries of our home. However, when I mentioned this to the solicitor they told me that minors will benefit regardless of if you state they are not to benefit. I am not sure if I misunderstood but how can this be? Why should one child get a whole house plus a share of another and money / assets when the other children share a house of lesser value and get significantly less? It makes no sense to me. Sorry, it must sound very cruel.