How old are they? You really don't know how things are going to turn out for them. One could develop a disability later, like MS. One could become a caretaker for a dependent spouse or have a SN child. I would do 50/50.

If you’re going to do something other than 50/50, do it with integrity and tell the child who will be getting less and why. If you have a really good reason (e.g., one has a disability that will require life-long care so you’re providing for that need and splitting the rest), you should be willing to own it while you’re alive rather than dodging responsibility by revealing it after you die. If you aren’t willing to do that, maybe you should rethink whether your division is truly fair.

You will simply ensure that they hate one another and that one of them will hate you.

Discuss it with the kids. Ask them separately what they think you should do. Then, tell them what you decided. My parents ask me and my brother this every couple of years. We are both fine/comfortable, and, my brothers wife has many millions coming her way, likely within the next 5 years. We do not have that luxury, but like I said, we are fine/comfortable. Our kids will likely go to in state colleges, my brothers kids likely private. Our parents probably have hundress of thousands to pass along, not millions, and that would make a huge difference for our kids, not a drop in the bucket for my brother.

Yet, we both say, split it 50/50. Not worth the hassle with my brother - it's only money.

A family member passed away, leaving one final jab. She split 60/40. Favorite child felt as bad as the black sheep. They ended up splitting 50/50, but that final slap stung.

Anonymous wrote:Really? I thought it made sense practically. I'll reconsider.

-- OP

OP - it does make sense practically but a 75/25 might be pushing it. I don't feel the need to divide my estate purely on the basis of the number of children. If I had a kid who was a slackered and waiting for an inheritance he/she would be very disappointed.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you have to make it completely equal. I always tell my children fair isn’t always equal - it’s more about what each one needs. That said, I think you need to approach it in a different manner. If your estate is high value, I would make sure child with disabilities is set up with the support he/she needs and then see what is left and how to split it. The way you are doing it is out of spite.

I don't agree with PP's first thought that fairness should be needs based, but I DO agree with her option to set aside money for the disability, then divide the other half equally.

OP, here is the rub. You will be dead, but the siblings have to live with each other. Never do anything that is going to make them feel "Parent loved YOU more than me" or "Sibling is such a greedy person, keeping what should be mine."

The reason I don't agree with the philosophy of PP (needs based) is that many times, that just creates a dependent child for life; if every time they have a problem and parent steps in with extra attention or extra money, you teach them to have a problem...a chronic problem. I'm older now and my peer's generation of parents are dying off, and I have watched this play out with my peers who have siblings; it can destroy the sibling relationship. Actually you don't even have to be dead to ruin the relationship; just start lavishing the loser kid with attention and money right now, and the successful kid will feel neglected and resentful.

However; if one child does need something medically, that's different--and something the other child can understand. It depends on the learning disability.

We have one child who is more of a "taker" and one who is more of a "giver." These kids are teens and it's way too early for us to see what they will be like as adults. DH at times, when mad at the taker for her lack of consideration and her snark, talks to me about leaving her less. But that would wreck the sisters' relationship and I'm sure the giver child would feel horrible and guilty besides. So, just keeping it even.

If you never want the kids to speak to each other again, sure, great plan.

50/50 -- Good decision OP. So glad you asked!

Agreed--if one child will not be able to live financially independently, you set up a special needs trust and can split as needed to fund what you anticipate he'll need. If both are financially independent, just split it evenly. (You can always gift to the less successful child as needed while you're still around if you think you can do that quietly, though.)

Anonymous wrote:OP, are either of your children actually incapable of taking care of themselves? If one is actually not going to be able to be self sufficient, then of course, leave more for that child. If one is just more pleasant (and has some learning issues) and the other is less pleasant but no diagnosed issues, then NO, do not make it an uneven split.

In different words you state the case precisely. Reading the other comments I'm included to even it up 50/50.

-- OP

My grandparents left all their substantial assets to their sons who were very well-off financially, and almost nothing to their daughters who were struggling with illness and unemployment. They wanted pass everything to those "who would carry on the family name". The sons and daughters formed two camps and don't speak. The fallout has spread to our generation as well.

Anonymous wrote:

I always tell my children fair isn’t always equal - it’s more about what each one needs

Any Special Needs aside ---- this is a horrible approach. What will happen with this approach is the quiet child, the child who doesn't speak up and demand more, or who isn't "understood" by the parents because of a different personality, the parents deem them as not "needing" it.

In my experience, it all evens out in the wash. One child may have been easier going when younger but need more help at a certain point of life. We’re family, not bean counters.

We have family members who have substantial disabilities. They have a "special needs trust." It is really quite different than receiving a share of an estate or trust. Others may know if that could be useful where it is, presumably, a less severely impacting disability.

OP, are either of your children actually incapable of taking care of themselves? If one is actually not going to be able to be self sufficient, then of course, leave more for that child. If one is just more pleasant (and has some learning issues) and the other is less pleasant but no diagnosed issues, then NO, do not make it an uneven split.