Anonymous wrote:Goodness no. Do you have any family nearby? Or a close, trusted, friend?

We put my sibling in charge of the kids and spouse's sibling in charge of pur money until the kids were of age. We wanted to make sure both families would stay commented to our kids if something happened to us.

Now, both siblings live far far away, kids are just out of college, and/ or a beloved, trusted friend is named in charge of our money if something happens to us before the oldest turns 30 (youngest would be 27). If they are 30/27 or older, and we pass, all the money goes to them. The reality is, we wouldn't want them to have the money before then, we want them to build a life

30 is silly. I could see 26, but why not let them use the money to buy a nicer house and make things easier?

No, that's not fair to the oldest to miss out on college and life to raise the siblings except if its their choice and even so its not fair. They are not the parents and you need a parenting plan.

We will probably change our will when our only turns 18 but that's different.

Goodness no. Do you have any family nearby? Or a close, trusted, friend?

We put my sibling in charge of the kids and spouse's sibling in charge of pur money until the kids were of age. We wanted to make sure both families would stay commented to our kids if something happened to us.

Now, both siblings live far far away, kids are just out of college, and/ or a beloved, trusted friend is named in charge of our money if something happens to us before the oldest turns 30 (youngest would be 27). If they are 30/27 or older, and we pass, all the money goes to them. The reality is, we wouldn't want them to have the money before then, we want them to build a life

What makes you think your oldest wants to raise their siblings ?

Anonymous wrote:And this is yet another reason why being the oldest child is a disadvantage. Not only are you expected to be a role model for your younger siblings and your parents are first-timers with you, but they expect you to look after your younger sibs.

Well the role has to fall on someone. It is inevitable when you have multiple kids.

And this is yet another reason why being the oldest child is a disadvantage. Not only are you expected to be a role model for your younger siblings and your parents are first-timers with you, but they expect you to look after your younger sibs.

Anonymous wrote:If you have multiple kids do you change you will once your oldest reaches 18 to transfer any guardianship to oldest in the case of your (and partners) death? Right now all kids are under 18 so we have guardianship to my sister should both DH and I die. However when oldest child turns 18 the other two kids will by 16 and 13. If we die can we designate that the remaining children should stay with the oldest child? If you do that then do you give oldest access to the money so they can care for the younger children until they reach 18? Currently have large life insurance policies so we have them set up in a trust for kids. Not sure how they would be accessed if DH and I both die and kids need to live with an 18 year old. Life insurance for the two of us is around $5 million (and obviously have all of our other assets).

Yes

No, have a trustee until the oldest is 25

No - I would not do that. I might do it when the oldest is 21 or 22 and the youngest is closer to adulthood, but not now.

What I would do is rethink your guardians generally. Most people (myself included) pick guardians when they're pregnant or when the kids are very little. In that case, you want a loving family who will raise your kids in a similar way to your values, and often that's family who are geographically far.

Well, that might not be the priority anymore for a (newly traumatized) 13 and 16 year old. The priority might be staying nearby with their friends, school, and their existing support system.

My kids are still in elementary school, so we haven't made this change yet, but when the youngest gets a little older, we're thinking of changing our guardians from my SIL and BIL who live far away (but who are excellent parents) to our very close, local, childless family friends. They would do a fantastic job of getting our tweens and teens launched if something were to happen to us, while supporting them and keeping their lives and routines on track (in fact, we'd leave them our house and they'd probably just move in).

Do you have someone like that? What about another family close by? I'd gladly take in my kid's best friend if his parents die when he's a teen. I do think it makes sense to rethink this taking into account geography, but the older sibling is not the answer.

No, the oldest kid needs to be in college, not being a parent.

We changed our oldest to the guardian, but our kids are only one year apart in age so our younger would be 17. We explained to both of them that the older would not have to be physically present at all times, and in the very unexpected circumstance where something happened to us during this period they should work with a trusted relative (we didn’t have anyone living local in our city) if they wanted to find someone (paid) who could live with them and maintain the house, cook, drive them places, etc. Alternately they could ask a relative to help them find a small apartment walking distance to the HS. We would really just be trying to get our last kid through their final year of HS at that point.

The money would go into trust and a trusted relative would manage the money for both of them.

Op - my one hesitation is that sister (who is guardian) lives very far away so kids would have to move. Presumably if oldest child got guardianship they could stay in our house.

I would never put that pressure on an 18yo, personally. I like the previous poster’s approach of having an adult who can handle things like paying the mortgage, remembering sports sign ups etc for the 13yo but also no longer needing as much of a physically hands on presence that little kids need.

We had my SIL as the guardian, which I hated for many reasons (including shes MAGA, kids would have moved to her depressed, rural hometown) but she was the best/only option we had. We changed it when kids were 13, 15 and 16 to my parents, knowing they would move to our house and the kids could finish high school and kids were pretty self sufficient so not the same burden that they couldn’t have handled when the kids were all small. In both cases we have an executor to handle the money. A trusted friend who would have taken care of the considerable amount because my SIL and parents would be overwhelmed by that and we thought a friend would take that stress away.

I would not. I would want my oldest to go to college and focus on establishing their life. I would hope my sister would "parent" my 18YO even if she's not their legal guardian. Our trust has graduated pay out dates I think the last one is when kids are 35.

If you have multiple kids do you change you will once your oldest reaches 18 to transfer any guardianship to oldest in the case of your (and partners) death? Right now all kids are under 18 so we have guardianship to my sister should both DH and I die. However when oldest child turns 18 the other two kids will by 16 and 13. If we die can we designate that the remaining children should stay with the oldest child? If you do that then do you give oldest access to the money so they can care for the younger children until they reach 18? Currently have large life insurance policies so we have them set up in a trust for kids. Not sure how they would be accessed if DH and I both die and kids need to live with an 18 year old. Life insurance for the two of us is around $5 million (and obviously have all of our other assets).