Will - excluding a child

DUTR

Creativeshopper wrote: »

I wonder if OP would consider taking out a life insurance policy with his eldest child as sole benficiary? It could be taken out until the child is 18/21/25 - whatever is reasonable, and depending on the amount of cover could be a relatively cheap monthly outlay in terms of premiums. This would ensure that the marital assets are protected, but would fulfil the OP's financial responsibilities to his older child.

It's the principle that is being 'debated' though, in that they wan't the father to include the child in a share of the estate.
Besides, it would have to be the father that takes out the policy.

property.advert

My money, my choice. The morality police can go to hell.

neverdespairgirl

Purbeck wrote: »

'Proper family' hmm, well it isn't, these days, husband, wife and 2.4 biological children ( if indeed it ever really was, you only have to do your family tree back a few generations to know that there were more often than not step-half-adopted children, 2nd wives in practically every branch).

Speak for yourself!

In my family tree, the only step-parent was my Granny's, and her mother re-married after her father's death, when my Granny was 26 and already married herself.

Otherwise, back up to 8 generations, not a step-parent, adopted child, half-sister etc in sight.

zcrat41

Good call never despair girl. 6 generations back in mine and no divorce either.

Anyway, there could be a myriad of reasons why one child is being left out. In farming families there is still some element of primogeniture or one child inherits in order to keep the family farm together. Albeit, those families tend to set the other child up from an early age. Who's to say the child isn't going to inherit a farm from his mum and OP thinks that's plenty and wants to give his later children another opportunities.

However, from what I've read I don't think this scenario would apply and I do think OP is morally in the wrong.

Callie22

zcrat41 wrote: »

Good call never despair girl. 6 generations back in mine and no divorce either.

I must have crawled from an absolute cess-pit of depravity then Going back half a dozen generations we've got illegitimacy, numerous divorces, children who were brought up by different fathers - in fact what family tree we do have is only a very rough guide as it's an open secret that half of the fathers on there weren't the biological parents. It makes for some interesting research but life must have been hellish for some of my ancestors.

WhiteHorse

There's nothing like the smell of an inheritance to show people in their true colours.

blue_monkey_2

The OP is not morally wrong if he was deceived into getting someone pregnant. HE might not have wanted a child. HE might not have been told tha, he has a duty to provide for that child until he/she is 18 but after that? No, they are an adult and should be able to make their own way through life.

It is all very well for it to be the womans choice to have a baby without even telling a man - unless of course she wants money, the man has done the right thing morally by providing for the CHILD while they are just that and cannot support themselves. But should he have to give his wifes money to an adult that he does not see, nor wants to see (his choice for whatever reason), then no. Being blood is not enough of a reason to give someone money, if you are going to take that stance then people should also be providing for nieces, nephews, sisters, brothers, grandchildren, etc... and giving everyone an equal share.

There should be no 'entitlement' for anyone other than that person provides for day to day, adults are more than capable to provide for themselves unless they have a disability or illness that prevents them working. To fight over money when you can provide for youself is just short of desperate and greedy anyway IMO.

blue_monkey_2

WhiteHorse wrote: »

There's nothing like the smell of an inheritance to show people in their true colours.

Indeed, it's funny how many 'caring relatives' you suddenly find you have when you've popped your cloggs!

I am going to write my bit for the church/crem while I am still here to let people know what I think of them and ask that if they are in the church that day, that it be read out. No doubt they will be there shedding their crocodile tears for the rest of the family to see and people should know what they are really like.

A whiff of money and they crawl from all crevices.

nibs

WhiteHorse wrote: »

There's nothing like the smell of an inheritance to show people in their true colours.

So true

My dad left when I was 9 and has never had a relationship with me, but he has with my brother.
No reason or logic but thats how it has been for over 30 years.
When he dies my brother will benefit.
I would never contest that, I dont expect anything - I dont know him and I accept that we will never have a relationship. He doesnt owe me anything.

If I lived in the past I would be a bitter and sad woman but I chose to let go, accept what I couldnt change and have a fab life.

We need to change the belief that we are 'owed' x,y and z and its 'rightfully ours'

OP, its your money, do with it what you want.

princessdreamer

What happens if the father walks out on this second family and changes his will again, would the ex wife be happy for her child to be ignored and left out of an inheritance. Second marriages have a higher failure rate. Life is complicated maybe one day I will be in the OPs position wanting to protect my children over step kids maybe not. I would hope if I ever have step children I could get on with them and their mother.