who would you choose

jackomdj

We thought long and hard when we wrote our wills. I did not, for various reasons, want either my or OH's parents. Also I did not want my sister.

We asked some close friends, who were childless at the time. It ended up with all 4 of us crying because they were so honoured that we had asked them.

They have since had an ivf baby (no longer a baby, he has just started school) but still maintain a brilliant relationship with our children.

fluffnutter

It doesn't have to be a decision that stands for ever. For example, you could nominate your or your husband's parents for a few years (assuming this is suitable). Obviously they'll be getting on eventually so you'd revisit the issue at some point. By the time you feel it's too much of a burden for parents, you might find that little sister's circumstances have changed and she now has, if not kids, then at least a committed relationship and a lifestyle that would welcome children. Potential guardians don't have to be for life - it's perfectly acceptable and sensible to review and change your mind periodically.

Mojisola

fluffnutter wrote: »

It doesn't have to be a decision that stands for ever. For example, you could nominate your or your husband's parents for a few years (assuming this is suitable). Obviously they'll be getting on eventually so you'd revisit the issue at some point. By the time you feel it's too much of a burden for parents, you might find that little sister's circumstances have changed and she now has, if not kids, then at least a committed relationship and a lifestyle that would welcome children. Potential guardians don't have to be for life - it's perfectly acceptable and sensible to review and change your mind periodically.

You could have a letter kept with your will which gives your wishes for the children's future if you both die. It's easier to rewrite a letter as circumstances change than redo the whole will - although wills should be revised on a regular basis.

Social services aren't obliged to comply with your wishes but they will give them serious consideration. If there is someone suitable in the family who is willing to give the children a home, they're not likely to look elsewhere.

Bennifred

I would also like to point out that the person named as guardian doesn't actually have to do the "looking after" themselves - they get the say in who they think is best, if it is not themself at that specific time.

fluffnutter

Mojisola wrote: »

You could have a letter kept with your will which gives your wishes for the children's future if you both die. It's easier to rewrite a letter as circumstances change than redo the whole will - although wills should be revised on a regular basis.

Social services aren't obliged to comply with your wishes but they will give them serious consideration. If there is someone suitable in the family who is willing to give the children a home, they're not likely to look elsewhere.

Absolutely. It's a bit of a myth that you nominate guardians in your will (as if your children are part of your estate!). That's not really how it works - like you say, it's usually a codicil or addition to your will simply stating your wishes. Again, as you say, this isn't 'legally binding' but can be challenged. The courts will usually abide by your wishes but can appoint someone else if they deem them more suitable.

Brighton_belle

The other consideration is that you can separate out the finance side - I'm one of 2 nominated trustees of a trust that will come
in to play if my 2 friends both die and their children are left orphans. A different family get to actually have the kids live with them.
Myself and the other trustee get to deal with and make all the financial decision for the children's welfare both current and future. Which will of course include enabling the family they live with to manage financially as well.
This does mean the huge responsibility for the children's welfare is spread across more people. I regard it as a huge honour to be asked and take the responsibility very seriously.

Lunar_Eclipse

Your mum or your younger sister, but definitely not your older sister.

My parents are named for our children and they're the same age as your mum. 63 is far from old; my parents are incredibly fit and active, so I have no issues with their age, particularly since we have a pre-teen and teenager (so no very young children who are more physically demanding.) But I have met 63 year olds who are more like 80, so it depends on the individual/s.

Lunar_Eclipse

thorsoak wrote: »

Talk to your sister and your parents - maybe you could make them joint guardians if they were prepared to work together.

This was my first thought too. Could work well.

zagfles

jackomdj wrote: »

We thought long and hard when we wrote our wills. I did not, for various reasons, want either my or OH's parents. Also I did not want my sister.

We asked some close friends, who were childless at the time. It ended up with all 4 of us crying because they were so honoured that we had asked them.

They have since had an ivf baby (no longer a baby, he has just started school) but still maintain a brilliant relationship with our children.

Yes it's a great honour to be asked - your sister will probably be chuffed and not start worrying about how it might affect her lifestyle if tragedy strikes. And of course I'm sure you mum would help out too so she wouldn't be alone.

zagfles

Brighton_belle wrote: »

The other consideration is that you can separate out the finance side - I'm one of 2 nominated trustees of a trust that will come
in to play if my 2 friends both die and their children are left orphans. A different family get to actually have the kids live with them.
Myself and the other trustee get to deal with and make all the financial decision for the children's welfare both current and future. Which will of course include enabling the family they live with to manage financially as well.
This does mean the huge responsibility for the children's welfare is spread across more people. I regard it as a huge honour to be asked and take the responsibility very seriously.

TBH that sounds like a recipe for disaster - would you really want to take on the responsibility for someone else's children but have someone else decide what you can and can't spend on them?

When we were asked it was made quite clear the kids would come with the money - I think I'd have been offended rather than honoured if they'd said someone else will get the money and make the financial decisions.