Horrible parents. Why would you do that to your children?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me. though they clearly have the right to do what they want that’s not the same as a right to no reaction or an entirely neutral response.

Why is it a bad idea?

I don’t know what to tell you if your imagination can’t stretch to understanding that barring circumstances not mentioned in the op (special needs, difference in standard of living) it may cause surprise and hurt.

OP said there was a difference in standard of living. Also everyone is ignoring the church element. Maybe the parents viewed the work for the church as a real sacrifice to the family’s finances and appreciated that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me. though they clearly have the right to do what they want that’s not the same as a right to no reaction or an entirely neutral response.

Why is it a bad idea?

I don’t know what to tell you if your imagination can’t stretch to understanding that barring circumstances not mentioned in the op (special needs, difference in standard of living) it may cause surprise and hurt.

Do all 3 of the adult children have kids? The one that received the 1M has multiple from what you said, what about the others?

Anonymous wrote:It’s their money and there’s no obligation to give everyone the same.

Or to give it at the same time.

One set of former in laws got $30k a year from my then MiL to pay for Jewish day school for their eldest (wife was SAH). They considered it differently than disbursements from the parents to the other kids for down payments for cars/mortgages or other expenses. Cue a lot of anxiety over how the estate will be divided. In the end, though, it was the parents’ money to give as they pleased.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me. though they clearly have the right to do what they want that’s not the same as a right to no reaction or an entirely neutral response.

Why is it a bad idea?

I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me. though they clearly have the right to do what they want that’s not the same as a right to no reaction or an entirely neutral response.

Anonymous wrote:It’s obviously their money to do what they want with but it was a bad idea and natural to find it strange and awkward.

It may be “awkward” for some to talk about but it wasn’t a “bad idea” and it wasn't “strange” either.

You need to decide what’s more important to you in life - harmonious relationships and the ties of family or money beyond what anyone needs to be fulfilled and happy. If it’s the former, give yourself a moment to be annoyed then figure out how to let it go.

Spoiler alert: one way of living is likely to make your time on earth happier than the other.

It’s obviously their money to do what they want with but it was a bad idea and natural to find it strange and awkward.

It’s their money and there’s no obligation to give everyone the same.

Its their money. Maybe foolishly spent, but theirs all the same.

It's their money. They decide what they do with it. If you want more money, work harder.

It's their money. There's nothing for you to do, because it's their money. If you're doing so well financially, you don't need to be counting your inheritance before your parents are dead.

I'm interested in what others think of this scenario. Parents are in their 80s and have 3 adult kids, all professionals, married, and doing well. Two of the children, with their spouses, are doing very well financially. The third has a job in the church and their spouse has a well-paying professional job - they are doing fine financially but clearly not as well as the other children. When that child (who also has some health problems) moved to take a new job in the church, they wanted to live in a large house in the most desirable neighborhood of a large city, have their kids attend the best private schools, etc. but couldn't afford to do so (this would be a living standard above that of the other two siblings). As a result, the parents decided to gift $1 million of their estate early to that child. They told one of the other children about it at the time but did not tell the other (presumably to avoid the difficult conversation). Several years later, this has all come to light and it is awkward. The parents' position is that nothing will be done to even things out (now or later) as this gift was for "need". Thoughts? Advice?