Under what circumstances would you disinherit a grown child? (baby, games, playing)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I couldn't disinherit my child even if I wanted to. The law is very strict in Finland - all your children must get an equal share which together equals at least 50% of your inheritance.
Does that mean the surviving spouse only gets 50% of an estate and all the kids-regardless of age- share the remaining 50%? I certainly would not like that.
Yes you do. Why pose the question asking do you agree, is it for reassurance? Did someone question your decision? Just wondering.
I have made no decisions yet and I asked the question because I'm wondering how others thought. It is very interesting and informative to learn the different ways people view inheritance.
and what does "Yes you do" refer to? That one does have the right to leave their estate to an animal shelter (or anywhere else) or that one should leave it equally to all children?
Yes, as a loving parent they are automatically entitled to an inheritance. Even the most evil parents leave an inheritance to their children. I agree that providing for your grandchildren is also a good idea, at least giving a little to them.
You need to do the right thing even if you strongly feel they will not. Again, a special needs living trust is a way to do that if you feel the child may use the money to hurt themselves. You can have the asurrance their basic needs are provided for and nothing beyond that. But rotten parents often have every excuse not to even provide for their childrens basic needs, especially those which are horrible with money. No matter the reason
It doesn't surprise me that people who feel this way often have children who are having troubles. Just look at the parents they had
Barring physical and mental limitations, it is the responsibility of every individual to PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN BASIC NEEDS. Remember we are talking about grown adults.
I think an inheritance should be viewed as a windfall and not something expected or entitled to.
Personally and for many of my friends we saw lots of money spent to keep our elderly parents comfortable, alive and cared for. Some of us were able to receive some inheritance after all the expenses were met but others saw every cent and then some gone. I don't think any of us expected to receive anything but hoped we would. For example, my best friend's mother just died at age 94 after spending the last 15 years in assisted living with dementia. Over the years I watched the family struggle with selling off assets one by one to pay for this care. One of them expected an inheritance but as he watched it slide he began to realize some of his life decisions had been based on "getting family money " and he was not prepared for his own old age.
Yes, as a loving parent they are automatically entitled to an inheritance. Even the most evil parents leave an inheritance to their children. I agree that providing for your grandchildren is also a good idea, at least giving a little to them.
You need to do the right thing even if you strongly feel they will not. Again, a special needs living trust is a way to do that if you feel the child may use the money to hurt themselves. You can have the asurrance their basic needs are provided for and nothing beyond that. But rotten parents often have every excuse not to even provide for their childrens basic needs, especially those which are horrible with money. No matter the reason
It doesn't surprise me that people who feel this way often have children who are having troubles. Just look at the parents they had
And it doesn't surprise me that so many young people today have such a huge sense of entitlement.
Also, to my way of thinking, the only "evil" people are those who intentionally and actually harm others -- and also, imo, it is much more harmful to raise your kids to with an entitled attitude than to raise them to be responsible for themselves. And, imo, society is worse off today from parents who fall at BOTH ends of the spectrum -- those who give their kids everything and those who give their kids nothing except life.
Also, are you saying that all parents who die penniless and/or in debt are evil, because they there is no inheritance to leave?
I couldn't disinherit my child even if I wanted to. The law is very strict in Finland - all your children must get an equal share which together equals at least 50% of your inheritance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu
Does that mean the surviving spouse only gets 50% of an estate and all the kids-regardless of age- share the remaining 50%? I certainly would not like that.
That is a good question. I can picture a number of situations where it could be a disaster for the surviving spouse. For example, if the only wage earner dies and leaves their 20 something age children 51% and their 50 year old unemployed spouse the other 49% is could be very difficult for him or her.
OTOH, there may be things connected to joint property, sharing of pensions, government programs, retirement programs, etc. that stack the deck in Finland so that the surviving spouse will always, or usually, come out fine
^^Or, it could apply just to the surviving spouse. In the US, in most states, if you have no will, the surviving spouse inherits everything (yes, there are exceptions).
I have some experience in this area, and I can assure you that any good lawyer will advise you not to disinherit your child, especially if you have more than one child. The reason why is that after you die, it's almost certain the disinherited child will contest the will, especially if there are considerable assets, and the child/children who do inherit will have considerable legal fees defending their inheritance, that could drastically diminish the amount of what they receive. It will also poison the relationships between those who inherit and those who don't. Do you want to leave that kind of legacy behind?
I've posted this story before, but it shows what can happen. Short version, my BIL left his job to take care of his father with dementia. He had two sisters, one who married and had grown kids, like him, and one who was a nurse and single, and the single sister and their mother insisted the father be taken care of by family, so he left his job. My sister supported him for a year and a half while he took care of Dad every day. Meanwhile, the mother's cancer returns, and she dies unexpectedly while the old man is still chugging along.
Father finally dies, and BIL says to the single sister, we have to sell the house/settle accounts, I am broke, etc., and his sister says, Oh no, they left everything to me. You and Other Sister have children to care for you when you are old. I have no one. They found the will, and sure enough, Mom and Dad left everything to the one sister. He asked her to at least give him money for a new used car, as his old one was about to fall apart. She lent him the money for a car and made him sign a note.
They sold the house and some stocks the parents had owned and were still settling medical bills when his sister--an RN, extremely overweight with diabetes and high BP who never took her meds--dropped dead of a stroke at 63.
Everything left from his parents' estate, plus his sister's home and savings, went to my BIL and his surviving sister. But, the bad feelings are still there. He has not returned once in five years or so to visit either his parents' graves or his sister's. He made sure they had markers and that was it. He still has no real idea why his parents cut him and his other sister out except for probably influence by the single sister.
This is simple: The one who gives the care should get nearly all the money.
I disagree. In our family 5 kids, all at different places in our lives. We couldn't all care for our dad, and 'taking turns' isn't usually practical, for a lot of reasons. The sibling who was able to step up and take over with the least disruption to their own lives was living with dad rent free and inherited the house and other properties when dad passed, as payment for the care giving.
I felt that was a fair decision, he put forth extra time and effort and he should have been compensated for it. I do not think the rest of us should have been more or less left out of the will due to the fact that one sibling was in a much better position than the rest of us to take over the care giving
~ Just as an fyi the care giver had a job not tied to a particular city and a wife that didn't work, another sibling had a job that took them out of the country for months at a time and one sibling was battling their own severe health problems. It really does depend on circumstances IMO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
