So surprised to be written out of my fathers will

Pollycat

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Indeed, the ability to breed does not make someone a good parent, and treating their children differently is an excellent indication of someone that isn't a good parent.

If you make the choice to become a parent, and it is a choice because birth control and terminations are readily available on the mainland, then you have no excuse not to treat your children well and equitably. If you can't do that then you shouldn't have become a parent.

Even if one 'child' is a drug user/dealer?
Or alcoholic?
Or partner/child abuser?
Thief?
Rapist?

I'd say there were plenty of reasons that a 'child' could make a parent feel like not treating them as equal as another sibling.

gettingtheresometime

Pollycat wrote: »

Even if one 'child' is a drug user/dealer?
Or alcoholic?
Or partner/child abuser?
Thief?
Rapist?

I'd say there were plenty of reasons that a 'child' could make a parent feel like not treating them as equal as another sibling.

Or if a child can’t spare their parent the time of day.

Pollycat

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

Or if a child can’t spare their parent the time of day.

But that's not what you were saying.
You said

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

If you make the choice to become a parent, and it is a choice because birth control and terminations are readily available on the mainland, then you have no excuse not to treat your children well and equitably. If you can't do that then you shouldn't have become a parent.

So - a simple question:
if you had a child in any of the categories I mentioned (or any of the myriad other possibilities) and a child who was kind, thoughtful, loving et al - would you treat both those children well and equitably?
And if you would, do you think you would be fair by doing so?

paddy's_mum

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

If you make the choice to become a parent, and it is a choice because birth control and terminations are readily available

Ah, but is it quite that simple? I'm 67 and as a young married woman, the pill had only just become widely available. Other methods then available were clumsy, unreliable or downright ineffective.

Legal termination didn't happen until the Abortion Act came into effect in April 1968 and in the first few years, was so hedged about with this-that-and-the-other restrictions, that getting a termination could still be problematic.

I'm also in the age group most likely to have their will made available and probated. As it happens, all my children have been good people and treated me decently so that I have no reason to treat any one of them differently.

However I have a close relative who has behaved so badly to the entire family over so many years that if I were compelled by law to leave them something, it would probably be a trailer load of well-rotted manure ... and think yourself lucky to have got even that!

warby68

I think you should start from the premise of treating all children equally and if, for some reason, you don't want to its a little cowardly not to make sure they understand why either at the time of writing or in something accompanying the will.

I'm not convinced here that the OP doesn't have an inkling as to the reasons why but if it truly is a mystery then there is potential for torment that can never be resolved.

Even if the reasons are not accepted or agreed with, at least they would be understood. It would also serve to dispel any blame a sibling might place on the others.

moneyistooshorttomention

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

You don't have to like your children, you know - it isn't compulsory.

No - one can't help ones feelings (or lack of).

But - one can help one's actions - as they are (should be) under the control of one's mind (not emotions).

moneyistooshorttomention

Pollycat wrote: »

Even if one 'child' is a drug user/dealer?
Or alcoholic?
Or partner/child abuser?
Thief?
Rapist?

I'd say there were plenty of reasons that a 'child' could make a parent feel like not treating them as equal as another sibling.

In cases like that - then that "child" would have "done something wrong" and that would be understandable and one would reject the person concerned in the same way that a stranger would be rejected for those reasons.

We are assuming we are talking about a "child" that hasnt "done anything wrong".

Which brings us back to the fact that, if OP has done any of that above list - then there's their reason why they've only had a token bequest and it's understandable and I'd agree with that.

But if they havent "done something wrong" - we're back to the puzzle as to why this happened to them.

Poor_Single_lady

I don't understand all the bitterness. A will leaving substantially more to somebody else doesn't automatically mean that it would be hard to be in the same room as them.

You still have the relationship but it seems like people are saying the relationship can not continue unless the sisters share their inheritance.

(Personally I don't understand why they should). But It is literally just money.

Pollycat

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

In cases like that - then that "child" would have "done something wrong" and that would be understandable and one would reject the person concerned in the same way that a stranger would be rejected for those reasons.

But that's not what the poster I quoted said.
Which is why I pointed out that there are circumstances where you might not feel like treating your children well and equitably.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

We are assuming we are talking about a "child" that hasnt "done anything wrong".

Which brings us back to the fact that, if OP has done any of that above list - then there's their reason why they've only had a token bequest and it's understandable and I'd agree with that.

But if they havent "done something wrong" - we're back to the puzzle as to why this happened to them.

Why do we assume that?
We don't know the history between the OP, his sisters and their Father.
Some of the things he's posted sound odd.
This, for example, although it might just be the terminology he's used:

mrcjevans wrote: »

It's a strange place because my whole life he never really bothered with me and I only met him by chance when I was in my late teens and ever since then I had seen him often but he never came to see me it was always one way effort wise.

As for 'the puzzle as to why this happened to them', why does it matter?
His Father did what he did.
And as I pointed out earlier, the OP didn't start this thread wondering why his Father had not treated him equally with his sisters.
He wanted to know if he could challenge the will.

Spendless

I have an Aunt who died just under 3 years ago. She had 4 grown up children. She left her house equally to be shared by all 4 children. Sounds considerably equal and fair doesn't it? Except child 1 has his own business and is wealthy and doesn't 'need' the £25K left by his Mum (we live where houses are cheap). Child 2 and child 3 work in professional jobs, the money would enhance their lives but they aren't in desperate need of it. Child 4 lived with their Mum at the time of death and had done for some years following a MH issue, that would have meant child 4's own children would have been taken from them into care otherwise. Child 4 has a big gap between her own kids so one was already an adult with their own house and job when Grandma died, child 4's youngest had turned 18 a fortnight earlier and was in an apprenticeship.

3 years on the house isn't sold because it would leave the Grandson who was living in the house at the time of death homeless. His Mum has now moved in with a new boyfriend into a 1 bed flat. His parents split up when he was a baby and his Dad has had nothing to do with him since then. But Grandma's will left everything equally to all her children.

We don't know enough about the OP's case to understand the reasoning behind it and whether or not it was reasonable or fair, though it seems to the OP it isn't.

My DD gave me this example recently to explain the difference between equality and equity

3 brothers go to watch a football game. They pay the same price and each is given box to stand on. The brothers differ in height. Brother 1 can see without the box. Brother 2 can see if he stands on the box. Brother 3 can't see at all even when standing on his box. Brother 1 gives Brother 3 his own box and they stack the 2 together so brother 3 can now see. All of them can now watch the game but only by dividing up differently what they were all given equally.

Sorry I put in a link to show an illustration but it's made the thread go wide, so I've removed it. Googling equality and equity and football match would find you what I mean.