who would you choose

There_Goes_Trouble

I am single with no children, I would take on my sister's children in a heartbeat if they needed me, no questions. Don't make assumptions, talk to your sister.

I also would take my best friends children should they need me, we have discussed that as her parents are elderly and her brother lives abroad.

I have another friend who I know has requested her son should live with another friend if anything happens to them, however he is now a teenager and the other friend lives about 2 hours away, so if those circumstances occurred now, I would offer for him to live with me to save him having to move out of the area at such a crucial school time, and to allow him to keep his friends through what would be a difficult time emotionally and not necessarily a good time to be starting from scratch in a new place. I have met and get on well with the other friend although we are not friends ourselves (I'm an old school friend, she's a university friend). She would retain guardianship and financial responsibility, but he would live with me. (Unless he chose not to if course, he is old enough to have input on that decision).

I am also trustee for another friends children. She has left them to a friend she trusts to care for them well, but she is worried that the friend is not good with money (which the friend admits).

Anyway, the point of my ramble is, don't assume your sister wouldn't want your children.

Another idea might be for your sister and parents to share the care, in much the same way that separated parents would. That way neither party has to have a complete lifestyle change and each would have some time to themselves. I guess that would depend on the children and how they would cope with that, but it works for lots of children with divorced parents so its worth a thought.

Brighton_belle

zagfles wrote: »

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?

I can see why that might seem the case for some people, and it wouldn't be right for everyone I agree. It would be terrible to be at loggerheads with the people who hold the purse strings.
But in our case, we will do everything to support the carers and we are absolutely trusted as compassionate people with integrity. It is about sharing the burden in our case. (Not that that any of us would see the children a burden, quite the opposite, but I mean the huge responsibility.) It means the cares have two other people to discuss things with, who care and want life for them and the children to be as easy as possible. It means when the children reach adult hood, if they go through a phase of feeling cheated of funds (because they don't have the maturity yet to understand why money was spent in a certain way), it doesn't all fall on the carers heads.
It is also about helping the carers not have the worry or fear of taking poor decisions and spending the kids inheritance in the 'wrong' way

But I totally agree - this would be a way of doing things that would have to be very carefully thought about to avoid dreadful problems.

jackomdj

zagfles wrote: »

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.

I don't know if you quoted me by accident, or just meant to quote that it was an honour, but we did not ask my sister, it is friends who are named. They will also have access to the money for our girls too.

notanewuser

When we were married, but hadn't decided to have DD, DH's best mate informed us that he and his wife's wills left their 4 children (then under 5 :eek:) to us.

First we'd heard of it. I was amazed they thought we'd be absolutely fine with it with no discussion!

Soon as we were pregnant with DD they changed it. Apparently they felt we wouldn't be capable of treating theirs as our own if we had them.

I'll never understand some people!

notanewuser

You've made me think that we probably need to think about this too.

onlyroz

What happens if you don't name anybody?

We asked my brother, and he agreed immediately, but then his wife threw a strop because we had not involved them both in the decision (what I actually did was take my brother aside and ask him to go away and discuss it with his wife - but she seemed to take this as some sort of slight). So as a result we currently don't have anybody named. I'm thinking of asking my mum, who is nearly 70 - and then if the worst happened she would probably come to some sort of agreement with my brother about sharing the responsibility.

Mojisola

onlyroz wrote: »

So as a result we currently don't have anybody named. I'm thinking of asking my mum, who is nearly 70 - and then if the worst happened she would probably come to some sort of agreement with my brother about sharing the responsibility.

We named the children's grandparents - they all knew each other and got on well - but phrased it so that they would be the people who made the decisions about the children rather than being expected to look after the children themselves.

Like the majority of people, we made it safely through the children's early years and the grandparents were never needed to fulfil the role.

Savvy_Sue

Bennifred wrote: »

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.

Indeed, we appointed guardians on the understanding that we did NOT expect them to take the boys on, just to act in the boys' best interests, which were likely to change over time.

As they're all in their 20s now, it didn't turn out to be an issue.

ButterflyKisses

I am on the opposite side of this issue. I am in my late twenties and working towards my chosen career. My OH and I have decided not to have children, for many reasons, but I have two nephews, 6 and 3. My (younger) sister has just rewritten her will, naming me as their guardian if anything happens to her and her husband. She was very hesitant when she asked me as she knows I am not planning on having children, but I was truly honoured and knew instantly I wanted to.

I love my nephews to bits and we have a great relationship. It would be a massive adjustment for me to take on a ready made family but we would cope, I would make it work. If the worst happened there is no way I could see them with anyone else because my career or social life was more important. That is just my take on the subject though.

Lunar_Eclipse

zagfles wrote: »

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.

Totally agree with this. I assume the guardians are also one of the trustees?

Are the parties involved very rich, so it's more about estate preservation for the orphaned children? Or are the appointed guardians absolutely rubbish with money and in debt up to their eyeballs? I suppose it's understandable then.

Personally, I'd be very hesitant to accept either role under such circumstances.