One of the most personal and often challenging decisions that parents face when planning their estate is how to divide their assets among their children. While many default to the assumption that equal shares are inherently fair, the reality is far more nuanced. Circumstances vary widely within families, and fairness does not always equate to sameness. Whether due to financial need, personal behaviour, caregiving responsibilities, or estrangement, some parents consider leaving different amounts to different children. This decision, however, is fraught with emotional, legal, and ethical considerations that merit careful exploration.
In the United Kingdom, testamentary freedom is a fundamental principle. This means individuals are generally free to distribute their assets in any manner they see fit upon their death. There is no legal obligation to divide property equally among children. However, this freedom is not without its limits. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 permits certain individuals — including children — to challenge a will if they believe that the deceased did not make ‘reasonable financial provision’ for them.
This legal safeguard aims to prevent individuals from being unfairly impoverished by a will that disinherits them or provides them with very little, especially if they were financially dependent on the deceased. While adult children are not automatically entitled to an inheritance, courts have sometimes ruled in their favour if there is clear evidence that their disinheritance or reduced share was unjust, given the circumstances.
Therefore, although it is legally permissible to give one child more or less than another, it is crucial to consider the potential for legal challenges and how to mitigate this risk through comprehensive estate planning.
The rationale behind unequal bequests can vary significantly from one family to another. Here are some of the most common reasons parents make this difficult decision:
1. Disparity in Financial Needs
Parents may perceive one child to be financially secure while another struggles. A child with a high income and robust financial assets may appear less in need of inheritance than a sibling facing hardship. Similarly, if one child has a disability or ongoing health issues that require costly treatment, parents may allocate a larger portion of their estate to that child with the belief that it meets their long-term needs more effectively.
2. Caregiving Responsibilities
In many families, one child may assume the role of caregiver, providing physical, emotional, or financial support to ageing parents. This contribution can significantly impact the parents’ quality of life, prompting them to reward the caregiver with a larger portion of the estate in appreciation of their efforts. Parents in this position often feel that providing more to the caregiver is not only deserved but also a way to recognise years of dedication and sacrifice.
3. Estrangement or Relationship Breakdown
Family dynamics are not always harmonious, and estrangement can occur. Parents who have been alienated from a child for a significant time may feel justified in leaving them a reduced share or excluding them entirely. Whether due to behavioural concerns, conflict, or a complete breakdown in communication, the decision to disinherit or limit an estranged child’s portion is often deeply emotional, shaped by years of unresolved tension.
4. Lifetime Gifts and Advances
In some instances, parents may have already given substantial financial help to one child during their lifetime — helping with a house deposit, paying for higher education, or providing business funding. In such cases, they might reason that these prior gifts offset the need for a larger inheritance. To balance the scales, they might choose to give more to their other children who have not received equivalent support.
5. Values and Legacy Considerations
Parents may wish to support specific values or aspirations through their inheritance. For instance, if one child is heavily involved in philanthropic activities or has taken steps to align closely with the family’s legacy or business, parents might feel that leaving more to that child would sustain a broader family vision. Similarly, if one child displays financial recklessness, parents may be concerned that a large inheritance could be quickly squandered and may decide to either reduce their share or place it in a trust with restrictions.
Despite the validity of these motivations, unequal inheritance can severely strain familial relationships, particularly if the reasoning is unclear. Siblings who receive less may feel betrayed, abandoned, or believe that favouritism was at play. This can lead to prolonged disputes, damaged relationships, and even protracted litigation, draining the estate and deepening family wounds.
To mitigate these risks, clear and honest communication is crucial. Ideally, parents should engage in open conversations with their children about their inheritance plans during their lifetime. This gives family members the chance to understand the reasoning and deal with any emotional reactions while the parents are still present to answer questions and provide reassurance.
If such discussions are too difficult or not possible, a letter of wishes can be included alongside the will. Although not legally binding, a well-written letter can provide context behind your decisions and help the court — and surviving family members — understand your rationale. It can make a significant difference in reducing resentment and countering claims that the will does not reflect true intentions.
Estate planners often recommend the use of trusts when designing an estate that includes unequal shares. Trusts not only provide greater control over how and when assets are distributed but also add a layer of protection against undesirable outcomes. For instance, if parents want to provide more to a financially irresponsible child, but with guidelines to prevent misuse, a discretionary trust is an effective tool. It allows trustees to manage the distribution at their discretion based on pre-set criteria.
Similarly, conditional gifts — such as requiring a child to meet specific benchmarks like completing education or seeking employment — can create incentives for certain behaviours. While this approach can be contentious and sometimes viewed as unduly controlling, it can also serve as a means of aligning the inheritance with the parent’s values and expectations.
Choosing the right executor is critical when an estate includes unequal inheritance. The executor must administer the estate according to the will’s terms, which can be particularly complex if decisions are controversial or sensitive. A neutral executor who is not a beneficiary — such as a solicitor or professional estate administrator — can be highly advantageous in such situations, reducing the risk of perceived bias or family conflict.
In more strained circumstances, a family mediator can be beneficial during the estate planning phase. Mediation facilitates constructive dialogue among family members, helping them come to terms with difficult decisions and understand the reasoning behind them. A skilled mediator can help families find common ground, potentially strengthening relationships rather than leaving them fractured by a misunderstood will.
Decisions around inheritance are profoundly shaped by culture, tradition, and personal values. In some cultures, equal distribution among children is not just expected but viewed as a moral obligation. In others, primogeniture (favouring the eldest child, frequently a son) still influences how assets are divided.
Ethically, parents often wrestle with the difference between treating children fairly and treating them equally. Some believe that their final act should reflect a deep moral fairness, tailored to the needs and contributions of each child. Others maintain that equal shares are necessary to prevent rivalry and uphold family unity.
In an age of increasing individualism and diversity in family structures — including stepchildren, adopted children, and blended families — these questions are becoming more relevant. Each family’s dynamics are unique, and the ‘right’ answer is often a deeply personal one, influenced by a tapestry of experiences, beliefs, and hopes for the future.
Even if reasons for unequal inheritance appear sound and well documented, there remains a risk of challenges during probate. Undue influence — the claim that the deceased was manipulated into changing their will — is a common basis for contesting unequal distributions. To defend against such claims, it is essential that wills are drafted with the assistance of a qualified solicitor who ensures that the testator had full mental capacity and made decisions independently.
Moreover, having regular updates to the will that reflect shifts in family circumstances, financial needs, and intentions can offer further protection. A well-documented timeline of decisions, supported by correspondence, statements, or legal advice, makes it more difficult for any disgruntled party to argue that they were unjustly excluded or unfairly treated.
If you decide to implement an unequal estate plan but are concerned about maintaining harmony among your children, consider other ways to balance out the perceived inequities. For example, gifting sentimental or heirloom items to children who receive a smaller financial share can acknowledge your emotional bond with them. Alternatively, funding experiences such as travel or education for children with a smaller inheritance may present a meaningful and tangible gesture that honours your relationship in other ways.
Charitable giving can also play a role. If parents feel strongly that the estate should serve a broader purpose beyond the immediate family, directing a portion of the estate to charitable causes — either in one’s name or in the family’s name — can help reset the focus away from competition and more toward legacy.
Distributing wealth according to one’s wishes — whether equally or unequally — is a deeply personal process that intertwines love, logic, memory, and judgement. When done thoughtfully, an unequal inheritance can reflect a tailored, just, and considerate understanding of what each child needs or deserves. However, it should never be an impulsive or reactive decision, nor one made in secrecy or isolation.
Good estate planning is about more than just allocating money — it is part of the story you leave behind. Parents who navigate the decision-making process with clarity, honesty, and compassion often find that their children respond not necessarily with agreement, but with understanding.
Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions
Disclaimer
COPYRIGHT © 2024 MY WILL AND PROBATE
