Will - excluding a child

Mojisola

fluffnutter wrote: »

By being written out of its father's will. I've taken on board that the majority of the assets seem to be from the current wife, but all of them? And will that always be the case?

Without knowing all the details, it's very difficult to say what would be best.

Legally, the child does have a claim on the father's estate until he/she is an independent adult. After that, the father does not have to leave anything to him/her.

Morally - and without knowing the facts - perhaps the father should leave something to his first child but, what if, the child's mother took everything from the father when they split up and left him practically destitute, what if the mother is now very wealthy and will leave everything to that child, etc, etc. There are many possible scenarios which have lead the couple to ask if the first child could challenge a will leaving everything to the second child and the legal situation has been explained.

People make their own decisions, based on a lot of information not laid out in forum postings. We won't all agree with their decisions.

DUTR

fluffnutter wrote: »

Of course. But being overlooked in favour of your sibling is probably rather hurtful. It's up to the father who he chooses to leave his estate to; I sincerely hope that decision's been made with full appreciation of the potential hurt it can cause.

To deliberately favour one child over another suggests one of two things - 1) your relationship with one child has broken down or 2) you're being manipulated by the mother of the other. Neither prospect is particularly cheering.

I also felt the need to comment on part of your post... why is this first child not 'his family'?

Family as I understand is where there is a unit of often blood relations who co-reside together,
Perhaps the child who is subject to the broken relationship can do the right thing well before the last breath when it will be too late, and not worry about being left out of an estate share.

newcook

I wonder how many people who are saying how unfair/cruel/morally wrong this is, would answer the complete opposite to:

'Ive just heard that my biological father has died. I was the result of a 1 night stand and have never met him or spoke to him nor have I wanted to. He went through the correct channels of payment for CSA until I was 19 but I feel Im entitled to some of the inheritance'.

Who would call them a gold digger? Or make the comment of how a death brings people out the woodwork?

DUTR

newcook wrote: »

I wonder how many people who are saying how unfair/cruel/morally wrong this is, would answer the complete opposite to:

'Ive just heard that my biological father has died. I was the result of a 1 night stand and have never met him or spoke to him nor have I wanted to. He went through the correct channels of payment for CSA until I was 19 but I feel Im entitled to some of the inheritance'.

Who would call them a gold digger? Or make the comment of how a death brings people out the woodwork?

A fellow Brummie
It's obvious they are gold diggers, seen it happen in real life, after all that said, the way some kids are growing up, it will be a wonder if they out survive their parents anyway :eek:
I wonder if estranged parents would have to contribute to funeral costs too?

bethl79

redcard wrote: »

In situations like this just blame the other parent.
The other parent can then blame the other parent, and the end up is no-one's acting like an adult and the child suffers.

A few people on this thread should be on Jeremy Kyle. The sad thing is, they'll never admit it.

Too true! And in the words of Jeremy Kyle - if you don't want to have the responsibility of providing for a child then 'put something on the end of it'

fluffnutter

newcook wrote: »

I wonder how many people who are saying how unfair/cruel/morally wrong this is, would answer the complete opposite to:

'Ive just heard that my biological father has died. I was the result of a 1 night stand and have never met him or spoke to him nor have I wanted to. He went through the correct channels of payment for CSA until I was 19 but I feel Im entitled to some of the inheritance'.

Who would call them a gold digger? Or make the comment of how a death brings people out the woodwork?

Perhaps so. But, to be fair, the original post didn't say 'child from a one night stand'; it said 'child from a previous relationship'.

And that aside, even children from one night stands are often well supported, both financially and in other ways, by their fathers. Plenty of men man up and love all their children, regardless of how they were conceived.

euronorris

newcook wrote: »

I wonder how many people who are saying how unfair/cruel/morally wrong this is, would answer the complete opposite to:

'Ive just heard that my biological father has died. I was the result of a 1 night stand and have never met him or spoke to him nor have I wanted to. He went through the correct channels of payment for CSA until I was 19 but I feel Im entitled to some of the inheritance'.

Who would call them a gold digger? Or make the comment of how a death brings people out the woodwork?

I would say that the above child is entitled to a claim on the inheritence. Maybe the child decided that they didn't want contact because the father never showed any interest. That doesn't mean they are any less deserving of the inheritence. It isn't the child's fault that the parents had an unwanted child, and subsequently dealt with it very badly.

However, that said, I do think there are circumstances where excluding a child could morally OK. In an example Nicki gave earlier in the thread, the father may have already provided a substantial sum for the child (over and above maintenance payments), or gifted them a house whilst alive, but hasn't yet done something of similar value for their sibling. So, in a case like that, I could see how it would be fair.

But....reading between the lines here, it appears that this other child has been dismissed simply because it wasn't planned/wanted (for all we know, it was a much wanted child, and the guy in question has been manipulated into abandoning it by the new wife, or decided that he wanted nothing more to do with it once he split from the mother) and to add insult to injury, is now also going to be excluded from the will.

And I think it is an awful shame that a child should (effectively) be punished for the mistakes of his/her parents. And any child this happened to, would most likely be very, very hurt.

newcook

fluffnutter wrote: »

Perhaps so. But, to be fair, the original post didn't say 'child from a one night stand'; it said 'child from a previous relationship'.

And that aside, even children from one night stands are often well supported, both financially and in other ways, by their fathers. Plenty of men man up and love all their children, regardless of how they were conceived.

but the post also said they have never met the child so the relationship was over before the child was born.

granted there are a lot of men that want to have contact with the children and support them financially and emotionally or fight for access - but there are also others that dont.

the final say as to whether a man is made a father or not is down to the woman (as it should be- it is her body) but surely it is up to the man if he wants to be a part of the childs life that he did not plan for in the first place?
it may not be morally right and it may not sit right with a lot of people but you cannot make someone be part of someones life.

princessdreamer

newcook wrote: »

I wonder how many people who are saying how unfair/cruel/morally wrong this is, would answer the complete opposite to:

'Ive just heard that my biological father has died. I was the result of a 1 night stand and have never met him or spoke to him nor have I wanted to. He went through the correct channels of payment for CSA until I was 19 but I feel Im entitled to some of the inheritance'.

Who would call them a gold digger? Or make the comment of how a death brings people out the woodwork?

TBH that would be more the father fault than the childs, maintaining the relationship until the child reaches an age they can make their own decisions is up to BOTH parents. Every situation is different my ex was my husband for many years, he has never been turned away but chose to ignore his sons. CSA is the minimum you can get away with paying, why should they miss out on anything left from the part of the estate he got that I built up.

bethl79

newcook wrote: »

but the post also said they have never met the child so the relationship was over before the child was born.

granted there are a lot of men that want to have contact with the children and support them financially and emotionally or fight for access - but there are also others that dont.

the final say as to whether a man is made a father or not is down to the woman (as it should be- it is her body) but surely it is up to the man if he wants to be a part of the childs life that he did not plan for in the first place?
it may not be morally right and it may not sit right with a lot of people but you cannot make someone be part of someones life.

Hi newcook, the original post said that only the wife hasn't met the child, the father has had contact with the child in the past. It doesn't say how much though.