Dying Sisters BF wants her to have his kids

[BePeppyDuck]

So my sister (28) broke down crying the other day after her and her BF got into an argument. Her BF (29) has been diagnosed with cancer and hasnt got much time to live but her BF was accusing her of not loving him enough and was saying that he wants to sell the house now. He paid the deposite and was also paying the mortgage, He also was paying for life insurance so my sister wouldnt have to worry about paying the mortgage if he passes.

He's actually a really nice man and they never once got into an argument. He helped out my sister and my family Alot but my sister says that she doesnt see the point in having his kids because he wont be around and she doesnt want her kids growing up without a father.

But although he paid the deposite and mortgage, the house is in both of thier names. He started saying that my sister must not love him enough because she wont have his kids and that he doesnt want to die only for her to have kids with another man in a mortgage free house in which he paid the deposite for. I think my sister wants to keep the house but she doesnt have enough money to buy him out or even pay the monthly mortgage.

I dont know what I should do in this situation or what advice to give

Really, why should she have his house in the 1st place?

To be clear, I should also add that if they remain unmarried and he dies intestate she will inherit nothing from him automatically, as unmarried partners aren't recognised under intestacy laws, and as a consequence, they have no entitlement to inherit their deceased partner’s assets, including property, savings, or personal belongings, unless they are specifically named in a valid Will.

I would be getting separate legal advice, and dont tell him!!

Its their house, she lives in it too. And really if it wasn't the insurance money then the majority of the house would be the mortgage companies.

Thats not a bad shout.
Because if hes not leaving it to her. She needs to get her finger out and find somewhere else to live.
And probably get a full time job to support herself. She also needs to avoid getting roped into providing care etc for him.

I actually agree with you. Sometimes comfort for the dying person outweighs everything else.

Theres also nothing to say that once he’s gone the sister might actually want to use the sperm. She’d have options but no obligation.

Although I think I might be a bit confused by the post - I’ve assumed this is about potential kids once he’s passed and not kids that he’s already got with someone else.

Advise her to perhaps consider getting married but to go on the pill.
He is concerned about his legacy and is probably very stressed.
She is right not to want to be a single parent, it is not easy.
She is young and will hopefully meet someone else in the future.

Exactly. Where are his children's bio mother? Its a huge ask. I'm a single mother and I would not of chooses to be. Its a huge ask from your sisters boyfriend. How long have they been dating?

There are no children.

No decent parent would have a child, knowing full well they'll never have a dad. That's so cruel.
I think that he does love the GF enough, or otherwise he would want her to find love again and help her with a house.

"although he paid the deposite and mortgage, the house is in both of thier names"

Off topic but this is not wise

FFS !!

She's shouldn't have his kids, but tbf if I found out I was dying and I didn't have kids I'd no longer be worried about future planning and withdrawing any equity I had to try and enjoy what little time I had left. I wouldn't be feeling an obligation to keep on a mortgage and life insurance so someone else could have a more comfortable life going forward because I died

If it brings him peace let him freeze them. It gives her the choice later on.
marrying is also sensible from an inheritance and medical point of view. It sounds like he’s lost and needs some professional help working his way through this. Which is completely understandable given the shock.

I'm pretty sure you have to do the freezing before treatment starts. Certainly with eggs you do. So this is probably a moot point if he's already having treatment.

I understand him wanting to leave a legacy, but it's different to planning children in a relationship. She should stick to her decision and they both should access therapy services via mcmillan etc.

Poor guy he just doesn’t want to die and is angry and wants something to live on. I think they need counselling and really rather than argue with him just agree to explore it even if her hard not heart in it right now, who knows his thoughts might change over the coming weeks and months. He’s 29 and dying I don’t expect most people would be rational. I think your sister will need respite from this intense situation rather than focusing on this part I think it’s distraction and support for her. I hope they get the help they need

Sorry it was unclear. I agree he's not been rational which is understandable. Theres no way I'd agree to have a child in these circumstances its not fair on anybody though!

First of all… I’m really sorry that your sister is going through this. I was widowed at 26 and went through similar issues before my hubby died, though we already had a child.
with regards to the mortgage, if her name is on the mortgage (even if he did pay the deposit, etc) then she will be responsible for paying the mortgage going forward after his death. Unless his life insurance covers the cost of this. If she feels should couldn’t afford this then the best thing would be to sell up. But if she sells after his death then it will be her responsibility, but also she will likely benefit from any equity/profit gained - in turn this could cause upsets with his family, etc. I’m saying this based on my experience - i don’t know the full details so my understanding/information may be incorrect.
This might sound harsh as he is dying and he’s obviously being irrational but it sounds like he’s trying to keep your sister or keep some level of control her over her even after he’s gone. I can understand his concerns regarding her moving onto a new person and living mortgage free with them in his house but he shouldn’t be expecting her to have his children, especially now knowing he won’t be able to share the financial aspect of having a child alone. If he wants to freeze his sperm so that she could have the choice in the future then let him do it… the decision then still lies with your sister in the future and he wouldn’t know either way anyway. Personally I think he’s just being irrational, he’s terminally ill and wants what he wants and that’s hard for him but also for your sister and the family. But if he truly loved or respected her, he’d want her to move on over time and be happy and live a stress free live therefore he should be seeking legal advice regarding the house/mortgage so that your sister hasn’t got to worry about that after he’s gone. Wishing her (and him) all the best.

If her name is on the deeds of the house he won’t be able to do this.

If the house is in joint names at the time of his death, his will will have no effect - it would go to OP's sister anyway. I also think it's incredibly unlikely that a condition in a will about inheriting only if you get pregnant using the deceased person's sperm would be held to be valid - the problems are obvious.

OP, if your sister wants to show good faith, she could talk to a solicitor about changing the way the house is hold so that they are tenants in common rather than joint tenants, which would leave her partner to do what he wants with his half. However, I'm not sure how that would affect the mortgage. Any conveyancers around?

Because she owns half of it as it's in joint names? Also, in making that arrangement he accepted that the house would go to her if he died first.

The thread makes a really depressing read. I’m shocked at the number of posters who are suggesting OP’s sister is somehow a bad person for not wanting to have a child on her own, or for wanting to hang on to her home after he has passed away.

These two people are a couple. They have set up home together and were talking about having children. It’s incredibly sad that this has happened, but if the outcome is inevitable and BF hasn’t long to live, I would expect his priority to be that his partner is taken care of after his death, not to saddle her with children she will have to bring up alone, without a father.

He put his partner on the house deeds so it’s clear he knew that she would inherit in the event he died first. He also took out a life insurance policy, and if she’s the beneficiary then again, it’s clear that he intended to provide for her after his death. What people seem to be suggesting is that she is cut loose with nothing unless she complies with his wish to have his children. That in itself is quite shocking, along with the transactional nature of it.

So you would have no care about whether your partner was taken care of after you die ? Nice.

If OP’s sisters’ name is on the deeds to the house and they are joint tenants it doesn’t matter what he puts in his will, his share of the house will automatically pass to her. The only way to stop that is to change to tenants in common - he would have to serve her notice of severance and submit the relevant forms to land registry. This would allow him to will his share of the property to whoever he liked.

You were questioning people’s morals upthread. Maybe you should take a look at your own. You’ve made a few assumptions about OP’s sister based on nothing more than the fact that she works part time. From that you’ve deduced that she’s contributed nothing and isn’t entitled to inherit the house. If she’s working, then she’s obviously contributing to the household, and did you ever stop to consider that she may be working part time because she is caring for her partner ? Clearly not, because despite OP making no reference to this, you’ve decided she’s not his carer.

And your suggestion that she should only be allowed to keep the house if she really intends to go ahead and have his children is utterly abhorrent. The man is dying and clearly not thinking rationally because this is nothing more than emotional blackmail designed to make her fear for her future security and so coerce her into doing what he wants.

These two people are a couple. OP’s sister is his partner and it was his decision to put her on the deeds of the house, and to take out insurance so that she is taken care of after his death. He clearly intended for her to inherit the house if he passed away first. How on earth is this any different to a wife inheriting the marital home after her husband has passed. Their intention was to build a life together - that still stands, it was the diagnosis which snatched that away from them, not a conscious decision on either part.

In a loving relationship, under these tragic circumstances the main concern should be the welfare of the surviving partner - regardless of whether they are married or not. And to suggest that she should be made to give up her home under these circumstances is transactional at best and absolutely batshit at worst. And the fact that it’s other women suggesting it is disgusting.