Under what circumstances would you disinherit a grown child? (punishment, mother-in-law, parents)

[cheapdad00]

Originally Posted by no kudzu

For the sake of this conversation let's define grown as over the age of 27.

A friend is considering disinheriting her 33 year old daughter and she has every reason to do so but we started talking about what others would do.

A will is simply a legal instrument to distribute a person's possessions and wealth- It is not a declaration of love and I think many people get the two confused.

I would disinherit a grown child if

1) they had a gambling problem or addiction problem like drugs or alcohol and refused to seek or accept help
2) if I was reasonably sure he would give the money away to a cult or fringe group
3) if this child had demonstrated an inability to manage her finances or life in general
4) if this child had demonstrated or even said she did not want to be a part of the family anymore
5) if a child was already wealthy and other children needed inheritance more
6) if he was convicted of a crime and would be spending the rest of his life in prison
7) if a grandchild or sibling had catastrophic medical needs and bills

I know inheritances can be set up in trusts to dole it out piece meal over the life of the child. I think that would be better than a huge windfall at say 30 years old. It is also possible to change a will with a codicil or completely rewrite a will if circumstances really changed.

I do not believe in ruling from the grave but I also don't believe a person has an obligation to leave their wealth to anybody in particular.

Do you agree or not?

Isn't #5 punishing one of your children for their successes (or rewarding the other siblings for their lack of financial success)?

[maciesmom]

Originally Posted by cheapdad00

Isn't #5 punishing one of your children for their successes (or rewarding the other siblings for their lack of financial success)?

Not necessarily. Theoretically, one child could have won the lottery and the other could be a social worker. The lottery winner isn't wealthy based on their own accomplishments ("successes") and the social worker isn't less wealthy because he/she has failed somehow (lack of financial "success").

In most cases, all other things being equal, I do think that inheritances should disregard the finances of the beneficiaries, but I can see where there could be exceptions that make sense.

[Jayerdu]

Originally Posted by no kudzu

I would disinherit a grown child if

1) they had a gambling problem or addiction problem like drugs or alcohol and refused to seek or accept help
2) if I was reasonably sure he would give the money away to a cult or fringe group
3) if this child had demonstrated an inability to manage her finances or life in general
4) if this child had demonstrated or even said she did not want to be a part of the family anymore
5) if a child was already wealthy and other children needed inheritance more
6) if he was convicted of a crime and would be spending the rest of his life in prison
7) if a grandchild or sibling had catastrophic medical needs and bills

Do you agree or not?

For the record, I am in the never category. But I am curious about your list. I believe people can change i.e., people mature, get sober, beat addiction, etc. I have seen this happen. What happens if your child changes? Do you plan to keep changing your will yearly? The fact is, you don't know when you will die and/or if your child will change. Life isn't static. Things can change quickly. What if the child who got nothing later on had a child with medical needs? What if wealthy child got in a severe accident that rendered her unable to work? Etc.

[Marc Paolella]

Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl

Funny, no one has mentioned the situation of the child who the sole caregiver to an aging parent. My widowed mother has been disabled by serious physical issues for many years. She flat out refused to leave the family home to get a more suitable housing situation, even though her long-time doctor told us staying in that inappropriate house alone would likely kill her.

She eventually wanted to move in with me, so I allowed her to do that. She was 79 when she arrived. She's now 90 so I guess I'm a fairly effective caregiver. What do my siblings do for her? They phone regularly, visit for weekends one or two times a year (with me hosting them), and buy her gifts. Their excuses for not doing more range from "we have job responsibilities" to "we have children" (I do not), to every version of "we're really busy," etc.

They always seem to intend to do more, but it never actually happens. I have gone for as long as 18 months without a single full day off from my caregiving responsibilities. She won't travel to visit family as she is embarrassed by some of the personal things she needs help with and she is very dependent on certain doctors she is afraid to be far away from. She insists that family has to come to her, adults and grandchildren. And actually, I don't even think it's safe for her to travel any more as she is frail, quite deaf, and unable to walk.

I don't doubt that my siblings love Mom. In fact, in many ways they are emotionally closer to her than I am. I think she resents that she needs so much care and while she feels guilty that it falls on me, to some degree it makes her angry with me. When something is not going the way she wants it to, I'm usually seen as the source of her frustration.

Mom has limited means as she is decidedly middle class (as am I), but she does have some modest assets. I'm curious to know how those of you with opinions about estate distribution feel about situations like this one. If you go to the Caregivers Forum, you will see that circumstances like this abound. Elderly parents rarely make detailed plans for the care they will need in their old age and the required effort is very rarely divided equally among siblings.

This is simple: The one who gives the care should get nearly all the money. So when your mom dies, you should get virtually everything. The decision to become the caregiver is open ended with no guarantees as to how long the abridgement of one's life is going to last. That decision deserves the highest possible recognition for the caregiver upon the death of the one getting the care. Except for mementoes, your siblings should get nothing in terms of money when your mom dies. You should get it all, and I would take steps to make sure that happens while she is alive. It is rational, just, and completely fair and equitable for you to receive 99% of the estate when your mom dies since you were the one who stepped up to the plate when it counted.

[Marc Paolella]

Originally Posted by Jayerdu

For the record, I am in the never category. But I am curious about your list. I believe people can change i.e., people mature, get sober, beat addiction, etc. I have seen this happen. What happens if your child changes? Do you plan to keep changing your will yearly? The fact is, you don't know when you will die and/or if your child will change. Life isn't static. Things can change quickly. What if the child who got nothing later on had a child with medical needs? What if wealthy child got in a severe accident that rendered her unable to work? Etc.

Actually hardly anybody 30 or older ever changes. Almost never. Most drunks stay drunks. Most addicts stay addicted. Most gamblers always gamble. And most bad people, stay bad people. The correct decision is to observe reality TODAY, reward virtue TODAY, punish vice TODAY, and the future may do whatever it wants, which is most of the time: nothing. You can make amendments if you actually observe changes while you are alive. But such changes are exceedingly rare. And parents should definitely pick winners and losers and reward/punish accordingly when distributing their estate.

If someone actually does change after the parents die, good for them, enjoy the new better behavior, it is its own reward. But the estate ship has sailed, and you deserve nothing for changing later, when you should have changed sooner. Time matters, and you have an obligation to be good to your parents if they were good to you while they are alive. Once it's too late, and you were a sh** while your parents existed, you deserve nothing estate wise, ever.

[Aery11]

I am wrestling with 'how to distribute whatever is left when I leave this world' stuff myself these days. I don't know the answers and I am sure they are different for everyone anyway.


I have 3 children, from 2 different marriages. None of my kids have married or have children and that may always be the case as at least two of them are probably past 'child-bearing/rearing' years now themselves.


My oldest son, if I can get hold of him which perhaps happens once a year (he is definitely NOT a high tech guy - won't even use the answering machine I sent him and doesn't own a cellphone or a computer), sends me a card about once every 3 years and is the only one of my children that I actually feel comfortable and enjoy talking to. I really love his 'company' on the phone but we have not seen each other in many, many years.


My second son has not talked to me in 20 years and was difficult to talk to at best anyway, but, he also is somewhat reclusive, and even though he lives next door to his brother doesn't even talk to him either even though they get along - so this is not 'all' about me.


Neither son has ever asked for a penny from me (their paternal grandparents though I know have been good to them - they have not nor will they 'suffer' financially but they both work hard too).


My daughter is essentially an only child (a fair bit younger than her brothers who she really doesn't know well at all and they live 1000s of miles apart) but she gets spoiled and financially helped out by her father even though she is an adult now - and will inherit from him much more than I could leave her. I have also helped her out (bailed her out - but not from jail) and my father did too over the years. I may get a short email from her once every few months, occasionally she professes that she worries about me, but other than that, I sense not much 'connection' from her side really and I think that most of the time when she contacts me it is because she needs help of some kind.


Every one of them is special to me, particularly when I focus on remembering them as babies and small children, but, I doubt I cross their minds more than once in a blue moon. It is highly unlikely that any of them will be my caregiver (I was my father's - and, to a great extent, my mother's as well although at the time she died my father was still there to help too - my brother did nadda in either instance but was the 'golden boy' in my father's eyes).


My father made me executor of his will (even though my brother is the lawyer). He left everything equally to me and my brother despite the fact that my brother is wealthy compared to me. I understand that but it was not easy for me at a point when I was grieving, had indeed suffered quite a bit of hardship helping to take care of Dad, and my brother was more interested in just holding out his hand for his share. I am however happy that I did all I could for my father and helped him enjoy his life to the fullest to the end. But, I can't say there were not times when it all felt a bit lopsided.


My grandparents got a bit senile in their old age I think and left their estate divided equally between their 3 daughters but for one daughter (the very one who was their caregiver and essentially gave up much of her life for them and never married) received only the interest from a trust fund (which was not much and the principle passed to the grandchildren upon her death - and we were shocked at that time to find out how little she actually lived on) while the other two got theirs outright. I loved my grandparents and they were wonderful people but the way they did this always seemed so wrong to me and unfair - and I know my mother (one of the two who were outright gifted) was always upset about it too and helped out her sister (my aunt) as much as she could.


At any rate, I wrestle with how to divide and honestly what I will probably do in the end is say equal shares to each (but not because I really am sure that is best at all) ... I am not sure any of them 'deserve' anything (though I also don't know if that even matters either) and I also fear that even that will create a problem IF perhaps one child does step up to do the work of tidying up everything after I am gone. I cannot even begin to guess which one it might be though. Not one of them will probably want anything I 'own' in terms of furniture or the like - they have no real interest in 'family history'. They will all just want cash on the barrel head I suspect. Anyway I waiver back and forth about whether to distribute evenly or not or whether I even really care any more. I have to put something down on paper though because otherwise too much will go to the government .. which is the last beneficiary I want to take whatever is left.


Nothing I do though is about 'punishment' for any child of mine or favoritism or judgement or love (I love all of them). None of my children will be 'cut out' but will I distribute evenly? I just don't know yet. This is really about practicalities and what is best for them - and it is not an easy decision at all in my case .. and probably in the case of many people.

[Diane de Poitiers]

Originally Posted by Mattie

People do need to be aware that you cannot just omit one child from your will, unless you specify that it was a deliberate choice.

Thanks much for sharing that......it's unfortunately something which my mom's going to have to think about with making changes to her will. (still has it set up like it was when we were minors) I do know that Mom was initially planning to divide things between all three of her kids, but with my sister and her husband having cut off contact, I'm not sure what Mom plans to do.

[Jayerdu]

^^^^

See. Some people do see a will as a statement of love, rewards, punishment, judgement, etc. I think it says something as a person to "stick it" to their kids one last time as their their final statment.

[convextech]

Originally Posted by no kudzu

F

1) they had a gambling problem or addiction problem like drugs or alcohol and refused to seek or accept help
2) if I was reasonably sure he would give the money away to a cult or fringe group
3) if this child had demonstrated an inability to manage her finances or life in general
4) if this child had demonstrated or even said she did not want to be a part of the family anymore
5) if a child was already wealthy and other children needed inheritance more
6) if he was convicted of a crime and would be spending the rest of his life in prison
7) if a grandchild or sibling had catastrophic medical needs and bills

It's not fair to make decisions like this. If the wealthy one is rich because they were smart, while the siblings are irrespsonsible mooches, well, everybody should get their fair share to **** it away or not. It's none of your business how they spend it.

The only time I would cut my child off would be if they murdered/raped/molested and then they would be dead to me.

[germaine2626]

Originally Posted by no kudzu

For the sake of this conversation let's define grown as over the age of 27.

A friend is considering disinheriting her 33 year old daughter and she has every reason to do so but we started talking about what others would do.

A will is simply a legal instrument to distribute a person's possessions and wealth- It is not a declaration of love and I think many people get the two confused.

I would disinherit a grown child if

1) they had a gambling problem or addiction problem like drugs or alcohol and refused to seek or accept help
2) if I was reasonably sure he would give the money away to a cult or fringe group
3) if this child had demonstrated an inability to manage her finances or life in general
4) if this child had demonstrated or even said she did not want to be a part of the family anymore
5) if a child was already wealthy and other children needed inheritance more
6) if he was convicted of a crime and would be spending the rest of his life in prison
7) if a grandchild or sibling had catastrophic medical needs and bills

I know inheritances can be set up in trusts to dole it out piece meal over the life of the child. I think that would be better than a huge windfall at say 30 years old. It is also possible to change a will with a codicil or completely rewrite a will if circumstances really changed.

I do not believe in ruling from the grave but I also don't believe a person has an obligation to leave their wealth to anybody in particular.

Do you agree or not?

I am looking at number 5. While it did not matter, because everything went to his wife, when my FIL died my husband had a really, really bright future. He was a brilliant man with several advanced degrees, a trial attorney, a raising star in our community. His brother was a graduate student, barely making ends meet, and his sister had a great job & was married to a wealthy man. So, should their elder son be cut out of the will because he had a bright future? Or the daughter because she was married to a wealthy man?

Ironically, shortly after his father died my husband had to leave his career as trial attorney due to a type of slowly progressing brain damage/dementia. He ended up getting a job that only required a GED. Eight years later, hubby was totally disabled, unable to work even at the job that most HS dropouts could handle and we were in huge financial difficulty. Brother now had a good job. Sis lost her great job when her company went out of business (but was still married to the wealthy man).

So, if my FIL had cut out one son because he had a bright future and maybe the daughter because, at the time, she had a great job and gave everything to the son in graduate school would that have been fair?