Will - excluding a child

System

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

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.

Ah, it seems my comment offended? It was not meant to at all. I spoke generally given a number of years genealogy research both for myself and numerous others. For example my gt gt uncle's youngest child was 'adopted' by his aunt on the death in childbirth of his mother, my gt gt grandfather (young widower after only a couple of years marriage ) married a widow who already had 3 children...then had 4 more.

Person_one

blue_monkey wrote: »

The OP is not morally wrong if he was deceived into getting someone pregnant.

Where babies come from isn't exactly a big secret.

lidlest

princessdreamer wrote: »

I would challenge any will left that excluded my children (well they would IYSWIM), all children should be treated equally by BOTH parents.

Really? Even if they are adults now and have made the choice to have no contact? My brother has been terrible to my parents, barely seen them for a decade, and when he has, he has said awful things. should he get the same will provision as me and my sister?

Should a half-sister who made the choice at 17 to have nothing to do with my father have a part of a will 20 years later?

I've told my parents I would rather they spent it all on themselves, but they are adamant that the house at least, will go to me and my sister. I'm thinking when the worst happens, god forbid, my 'siblings' are going to kick off. My sister will not defend herself so it will be up to me to fight any contest of the will, and I will do so out of principle rather than money grabbing, why should someone who has had no contact with their parents get money?

FBaby

My situation is interesting (just to mention, I'm not from the UK originally, so different rules might apply). My parents divorced when I was 2, my dad remained closely into my life. When I was 8, he met my step-mum who had a daughter from a one night stand, so father not around. They married and my dad automatically adopted her daughter. At the time, my dad had quite a bit of equity in a house whilst my step-mum had none. over the years, he was the main breadwinner, and the flow was that he earned and invested, she spent About 20 years ago, they decided to move into my step-mum parent's summer property. They sold the house and all the money was invested to built a house on that property. Unfortunately, my dad didn't realise then that because it was on the property of his parents in law, he was entitled to nothing of it. My step-mum parents' died and my step-mum inherited everything (she was an only adopted child), along with another property, hefty shares etc... If my dad were to die before my step-mum, all would end-up going to my sister only. If she dies before my dad (unlikely as she is 14 years younger), half will go to my dad (and then half would be divided between my sister and I) and the rest of it would go to my sister.

The irony is that I am not closer to both my dad and step-mum than my sister is, yet, there is absolutely nothing that can be done. The only legal way for me to be entitled to half would be for my step-mum to adopt me, but even then, my sister could easily contest it that this was done for the purpose of the inheritance. I'm not sure I would have accepted anyway, I do have a mother already!

In any case, it doesn't matter to me at all. They have managed to secure a bit for me, because they really cared to do so. I strongly believe that you shouldn't rely on inheritance. My sister has always been better off than I but I have always been happier than her because she is spoilt and always wants more whereas I have learnt to be happy with what I have. Money doesn't buy happiness.

EllaBeagle

A REAL father, no matter what their child had done, no matter what the childs mother had done, would do anything possible to make sure that child is loved and cared for.

In my opinion you are nothing but a sperm donor, and the poor child is better off without you. I hope you can live with yourself because one day you might be alone, unable to dress/feed yourself and ironically this child may be the only person you have left! I hope to god this happens.

I have had to grow up being excluded in similar ways and it hurts immensely and stays with you a lifetime. No matter what the reasons are, there is no need for you to be so horrible after not being there for your child or even trying to fight to be there. Maintenance money is of little value compared to love.

Mojisola

I think England and Wales are quite unusual in giving complete control over who we leave our money to. Most countries have laws that set out who can inherit. Looking at some of the recent reported court cases where wills have been successfully challenged I wonder if we'll be seeing the introduction of similar laws soon.

DUTR

EllaBeagle wrote: »

A REAL father, no matter what their child had done, no matter what the childs mother had done, would do anything possible to make sure that child is loved and cared for.

In my opinion you are nothing but a sperm donor, and the poor child is better off without you. I hope you can live with yourself because one day you might be alone, unable to dress/feed yourself and ironically this child may be the only person you have left! I hope to god this happens.

I have had to grow up being excluded in similar ways and it hurts immensely and stays with you a lifetime. No matter what the reasons are, there is no need for you to be so horrible after not being there for your child or even trying to fight to be there. Maintenance money is of little value compared to love.

No they would not, where do you get that silly blinkered concept from?
If they are nothing but a sperm doner then let them be just that.

ceridwen

Nicki wrote: »

As joint tenants or tenants in common? If joint tenants, and your husband dies first you are sole owner of the asset and it doesn't form part of the estate. You can then leave it to your child in your will. However, if you die first, you are scuppered. You can however sever a joint tenancy at any point and specify which shares each of you own. This would mean if your husband died first, only his share of the jointly owned asset would be part of his estate. If you died first, you give him a life interest as explained before. If you divorce, courts will look at all of the assets and divide them up based on who has child and what is equitable, irrespective of what you have said when you severed.

It's a complex area though. Why are you not getting specialist legal advice rather than risking advice on an Internet forum. Some of what's been posted above, eg NAR's advice is just legally wrong!

Sounds like a possible basis to go forward on:T

Assume, for the sake of argument, that 80% of "joint property" actually came from the wife - then it needs to be looked at how to protect that (as the wife is nothing to do with this child - so it wouldnt be fair for the child to expect any of what-she-has-put-in).

Whether the man is anything to do with the child depends on whether the decision to have that child was a joint one (as it should have been) - in which case the child is morally (as well as possibly legally) entitled to a share of the MANS assets only,

If the man didnt share the decision to have the child - then morally the child is entitled to nothing and the question arises as to whether that child could legally claim anything.

************************

If it turns out that the child is legally entitled to some of the mans assets - then could that money be left "in trust" to the child (to be inherited by them when they were still at an "idealistic" age and there might be some chance of them knowing their father hadnt agreed to have them and deciding to "do the right thing" and reject the inheritance OR "doing the angry thing" and throwing the inheritance back with disgust at having been unwanted).

The circumstances of the childs birth havent been given - so I am therefore assuming that the reason the father doesnt want the child having anything is because they are unwanted by him??? (One would assume the child would be due an inheritance if they had been wanted by him).

EllaBeagle

DUTR wrote: »

No they would not, where do you get that silly blinkered concept from?
If they are nothing but a sperm doner then let them be just that.

Why wouldn't they?? It isn't a blinkered concept at all. Thats the problem with this planet. Too many sperm donors not enough fathers. If my kids lived with their father, I couldn't go a day without seeing them.

The child the OP is talking about is obviously still young to be receiving maintenance, so what could an innocent child have possibly done to make him treat them like this?

DUTR

EllaBeagle wrote: »

Why wouldn't they?? It isn't a blinkered concept at all. Thats the problem with this planet. Too many sperm donors not enough fathers. If my kids lived with their father, I couldn't go a day without seeing them.

The child the OP is talking about is obviously still young to be receiving maintenance, so what could an innocent child have possibly done to make him treat them like this?

The same as the innocent child that has been denied access by the Mother, it's like me saying that those women are prostitutes! as really that is all they are slept for money, would you agree? Of course not, but they are no better than the people that they are slaying.
I suppose I ought to leave any of my estate to the Goverment, love to see if anyone would challenge that in court
But no one is on about making provision for dependants, we all agree that the aspect should be allowed for