Fiduciary duty over children’s savings

Eileenpamela

I invested money into my grandchildren’s Post Office Savings with their mother as the trustee. On the 5 year maturity their father got their mother and their 9 year old son to sign the paperwork to release the cash to his bank account without telling them he would be keeping the money for himself. Doesn’t he hold a fiduciary duty to protect his children’s savings? Isn’t this theft when it was money from their grandmother to her grandchildren?

xylophone

This was a children's savings bond?

https://www.nsandi.com/files/published_files/asset/pdf/childrens-bonds-key-features.pdf

Who controls the Bond?
Children!!!8217;s Bonds are owned by the
child, but until the child!!!8217;s 16th
birthday the parent or guardian
nominated on the application will
control the Bond, regardless of who
bought it.
Only the nominated parent or
guardian can decide to cash in the
Bond on behalf of the child, but the
money still belongs to the child. We
will send the investment record,
anniversary statements and any
correspondence to the nominated
parent or guardian

43. While the Bond holder is aged under 16 the Director
will only repay a Bond, or part of a Bond, to a person who
satisfies the Director that he or she is a proper person to
receive payment on behalf of the Bond holder. This will
normally be the nominated parent or guardian.

I don't think the child can have signed anything.

Your daughter was the Trustee of the Bond and it was up to her to protect your grandsons money either by choosing to reinvest the proceeds for another five year term or ensuring that the cash was ultimately paid into another account in the name of your grandson which she controlled as Trustee.


That said, according to the above, NS&I should have questioned the payment into an account other than that of the nominated parent?

bowlhead99

Eileenpamela wrote: »

I invested money into my grandchildren`s Post Office Savings with their mother as the trustee. On the 5 year maturity their father got their mother and their 9 year old son to sign the paperwork to release the cash to his bank account without telling them he would be keeping the money for himself. Doesn`t he hold a fiduciary duty to protect his children`s savings?

The mother as trustee literally held a fiduciary duty for the money she held on trust -that's what being a trustee is. But she signed paperwork to say she agreed to pay it over for some other purpose than sitting in a post office account. Generally people would still view it as the child's money as the child did not want to give it away (despite 'signing paperwork', though the child probably did not need to sign anything and it was the mother that controlled the account).

You say the father asked them to sign the cash to him 'without telling them he would be keeping the money for himself'. What did he say he would be doing with the money? And what is he actually doing with the money? What evidence do you have that the money will now not be applied towards the maintenance or eductation of the child over the coming years and will solely be spent on the father's own wants and needs?

Isn`t this theft when it was money from their grandmother to her grandchildren?

Theft is stealing, taking another person's stuff to deprive them of it without consent. In this case you say the mother and child freely signed paperwork to pass over the money, so there was consent. However, the action could be fraud if the consent was only given because they expected it to be used for a different purpose and the person instead took it for his own purposes to gain an advantage by deception.

If you are going to bandy around terms like theft and fiduciary duty etc you presumably have all the facts and evidence and we can't presume to know the details of your personal family affairs. However it would be pertinent to ask how you know this money will never be spent on the child?

Doesn`t he hold a fiduciary duty to protect his children`s savings?

How do you know he will not protect the savings or spend the money on the children's wants and needs?

IanManc

The only bit of Bowlhead's analysis that I would query is this: "In this case you say the mother and child freely signed paperwork to pass over the money", because the child at nine years old would sign anything his parents put in front of him and told him to sign, if in this case he did sign anything at all.

bowlhead99

IanManc wrote: »

The only bit of Bowlhead's analysis that I would query is this: "In this case you say the mother and child freely signed paperwork to pass over the money", because the child at nine years old would sign anything his parents put in front of him and told him to sign, if in this case he did sign anything at all.

I agree with the first replier in not really believing that the child signed paperwork to transfer out the bond proceeds, as nine-year-olds are not usually signatories to bank accounts and if their signature was on file it would be the signature of a four-year-old from when the deposit was made. Unlikely. It was probably just the mother, as trustee and controller of the funds.

My comment was really just on the language used, "isn't this theft". No it isn't theft, which is stealing the money and taking it away with the intention to permanently deprive the person of it without their consent. It was freely signed over by the mother (or mother and child) so if it is then used by the father for something other than the original claimed purpose it would be what we used to call 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' typically known in laymans terms as 'fraud'. Rather than 'theft'.

This is just semantics. The bottom line is that OP seems concerned that the father will take the money (which used to belong to the grandmother and then belonged to the children and was looked-after by one of the parents) and use it for his own personal purposes and not spend it on something that will benefit the children. Perhaps she (OP) is correct, or perhaps she is making a fuss over nothing, we don't have much more to go on, so we can't say whether he has committed a theft (unlikely) or fraud (possibly) or is simply going to spend it on the education or maintenance of the children, buying them holidays or icecreams or toys or transit in his car or a roof over their heads (possibly).

Eileenpamela

Thank you all for your input into my dilemma. On divorce, the fathers bank accounts showed this money paid in with no onward investment. There were bank accounts going forward for nearly two years. He was asked by the divorce lawyer many times where this money went but was never forced to answer and clearly chose not to. I requested the information from NS&I who sent me copies of the !!!8220;cash in!!!8221; showing the signatures. I vaguely remember NS&I querying his position at some point. Perhaps that was why as he wasn!!!8217;t the registered trustee. I find it particularly upsetting that their father should do this. Is it worth pursuing it through the small claims court?

xylophone

I vaguely remember NS&I querying his position at some point.

See my post above.

Presumably your daughter satisfied any query from NS&I about the account into which the money was to be paid?

To me the bottom line is that your daughter was the Trustee and should have ensured that the cash was paid into an account in your grandson's name (with her as bare trustee).

Eileenpamela

So no hope then. I will just have to add it to the other thousands he has managed to sneak out of the marriage and me. Don’t understand how an extremely well paid father can do this. Let us hope he gets his comeuppance one day. Thanks

bowlhead99

Eileenpamela wrote: »

Is it worth pursuing it through the small claims court?

I will just have to add it to the other thousands he has managed to sneak out of the marriage and me. Don’t understand how an extremely well paid father can do this.

The small claims court is not for petty grievances between family members.

It is not your money. You gave it to the parents to look after for the benefit of the child and it stopped being yours.

It went into a bond which on maturity was passed from the mother to the father. You say he will be keeping it for himself. A court would probably say it is not to be spent on himself, but to be spent on his children as it's the children's money. You don't like him and assume that he will keep it for himself and never spend it on the children. However, he may say he it is saving it for the children or plans to spend it on the children. Can you prove he will not?

What is the access situation, has the mother cut off all access to the children so he can't see them even if he wants to see them and spend money on them? Or does he refuse to have contact with them because he doesn't want to be a part of their lives? Is that why you say they will never get it? Or is he an ongoing part of their lives where he sees them and will have the opportunity to spend the money on them in due course?

You want 'your' half of the family to control it and not his. But it is not yours, you gave it away (to the grandchildren) so it is no longer yours to have a say. The parents should decide how it is spent. The last we heard, the mother passed the money over to the father. He could open an account with himself as trustee this time. After all, the mother already had a five year turn at being the trustee. If the father is not going to spend it on the children or save it for them or invest it for them, he should give it back to the mother so she can do that. You haven't said why the mother or the children want or need it back at this point in time.

As a "well paid" man is he not assisting or involved at all with their upbringing (financially or otherwise)? You say he has managed to "sneak" money out of the marriage and out of you. How did they decide to split the assets on divorce and did he not follow that - if he didn't follow the agreed split, case for the divorce lawyer again?

Eileenpamela

Can!!!8217;t or won!!!8217;t pursue anything through a divorce lawyer again, as they kept telling us, there is a difference between legality and morality so there is no justice in divorce. I shall move on thank you and keep it for my record book as my daughter is in no emotional place for further issues with a narcissistic ex who has always had to control everything to his own end. Thank you for bringing me into reality.