We picked close friends of the family. While it used to be my mother, she's elderly and struggles with health issues, so raising 3 kids would be very difficult. DH and I both have sisters, but neither is currently stable. We are stipulating in our guardianship that our friends who take the children in this situation support their natural family relationships as much as possible with holidays, weekend visits, and summer visits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny. DH’s family is all overseas, and I had our kids at 39 and 41 and my only sibling is 8 years older. If we picked my sister then our kids would be at a high risk of not only losing both parents before 18 but then also losing their replacement guardian at a youngish age. Nanny is late-20’s and single but she loves them like her own and would make sure that our family is in their lives but she would also be able to be there for them for decades to come after their extended family have died or succumbed to dementia.

This is … weird. Your nanny is your employee, not your relative. It seems like you think your nanny will continue working for you after your (theoretical) death. And she likely didn’t feel she coule say no if you were still employing her! And yeah, presumably you’re also leaving her a big chunk of money?

You leave the money to/for the kids. Have you really never met with an estate planner?!?

So you assume the nanny is going to properly manage the money? does she get the whole estate?

I’m not the PP who chose the nanny although I understand that decision. You can have someone else be the executor and/or the trustee. It’s not like the nanny just gets a bag of cash when you die and you hope she doesn’t spend it all in one place.

Our attorney had us name a long line of guardians and also temporary guardians if we were incapacitated or it took time to find our guardians. For instance, our first guardians are my sister and her husband and they’re a two hour flight away. Our second guardians are close family friends in our town. My husband and I both have other siblings but our children don’t know them as well. My SIL would be a great guardian but lives in Canada and that feels like too much change.

We originally tried to do wills a decade ago when I was pregnant with the first but got to the guardian state and felt stuck identifying “backups” although it’s unlikely to matter. This time the attorney had us make two lists (separately from one another). The first list was anyone we’d consider naming as guardian and the second was the top 3 qualities we’d want in a guardian. She then instructed us to circle any names on our list that had the qualities and to rank them. Amazingly, our lists (people, qualities, and rank) were almost identical. We’d talked to my sister previously. We then reached out to the friend and said we knew it was a big ask - and there are other names we feel comfortable with - and gave them a few days to get back to us. Ultimately they agreed to it. I would not have held it against them if they did not - we almost didn’t ask in the first time place knowing it’s a lot to ask.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny. DH’s family is all overseas, and I had our kids at 39 and 41 and my only sibling is 8 years older. If we picked my sister then our kids would be at a high risk of not only losing both parents before 18 but then also losing their replacement guardian at a youngish age. Nanny is late-20’s and single but she loves them like her own and would make sure that our family is in their lives but she would also be able to be there for them for decades to come after their extended family have died or succumbed to dementia.

This is … weird. Your nanny is your employee, not your relative. It seems like you think your nanny will continue working for you after your (theoretical) death. And she likely didn’t feel she coule say no if you were still employing her! And yeah, presumably you’re also leaving her a big chunk of money?

You leave the money to/for the kids. Have you really never met with an estate planner?!?

So you assume the nanny is going to properly manage the money? does she get the whole estate?

Best practice is custody to an individual (not a couple, if there’s a divorce you don’t want your children dragged through it, so you specify ONE guardian), and control of money to another person. This cuts off at the knees anyone’s argument that your named guardian is in it for the money. Obviously, it’s critical to choose people who can collaborate well and are on board with each other about what’s best for your child(ren).

FTR I’m another weird nanny person 🤷‍♀️. I’m down to one kid at home, our prior choices for guardians are dead, too old, or far away and down the Qanon hole in once case. Our nanny is very committed and loving, shares our values, and has shown overtime how trustworthy and amazing she is. My older children are simply not ready.

My former roommate would be the money man. He is extremely responsible and cares about my kid. He and nanny can work well together. Part of this choice comes down to realizing that you can’t control everything and choosing those who you believe will make the best decisions. For example, Nanny and Roommate both plan to stay in our town, but if something changes, I’m confident in their ability to make it work for my child.

I’m really surprised that people even consider naming a guardian without talking to them. I just watched a friend reject her cousin’s child who will be in foster care. Never would have thought she’d do that! Make sure your guardian agrees.

Guardian of person and guardian of estate are two different things. When you die even if you find a proper person to take care of your children, they might not be the best person to take care of your estate for your children.

I'd set up a trust and direct my attorney to sell all real estate and put all cash and savings into it after you die. The trust may be managed by a bank and to be invested in index fund. Every month or every 3 months the trust would give some cash to the guardian of your children for their living expense. The trust has to file tax etc so it's not for an amateur like your relatives.

Lady Diana's trust give her sons their share of inheritance only after they turn 30. You can't expect a 18 year old to take charge of $100K and spend responsibily.

Just somethign to think about.

My sister and brother in law. They don't have kids, have been married 20 years, live nearby and have similar values as we do. My kids love them and they spend a ton of time with them. We asked them before adding to the will. We are Catholic and my sister is my older child's godmother so my children have asked if their godparents (a married couple) would have them if we passed?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny. DH’s family is all overseas, and I had our kids at 39 and 41 and my only sibling is 8 years older. If we picked my sister then our kids would be at a high risk of not only losing both parents before 18 but then also losing their replacement guardian at a youngish age. Nanny is late-20’s and single but she loves them like her own and would make sure that our family is in their lives but she would also be able to be there for them for decades to come after their extended family have died or succumbed to dementia.

And yes we talked to nanny about it and also talked to extended family and explained our reasoning and they were all understanding and supportive.

are you leaving your nanny money to care for your multiple children? Will the house be in her name? Vehicles? Etc?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I just commented that our former nanny is guardian. There are provisions in place for them to remain in the house and have money for their care. We are fortunate to be in a position where it would not be a financial hardship for her.

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny. DH’s family is all overseas, and I had our kids at 39 and 41 and my only sibling is 8 years older. If we picked my sister then our kids would be at a high risk of not only losing both parents before 18 but then also losing their replacement guardian at a youngish age. Nanny is late-20’s and single but she loves them like her own and would make sure that our family is in their lives but she would also be able to be there for them for decades to come after their extended family have died or succumbed to dementia.

We had a nanny for 6 years who is truly part of our family. It's been 10 years since she was our nanny and we've remained close to her. We changed our will and named her guardian several years ago. Our parents are too old and our siblings aren't a good fit. We know she'd raise the kids the way we'd want them to be raised and she'd also make sure both sides of the family stay included. We did discuss it with her before doing it. We opted not to tell our family. It's very unlikely this would ever become a reality, so there is no reason to cause hurt feelings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have to do it. We wrote and signed a letter, but it’s nothing official. Our families live abroad. Our kids would go to my parents who regularly take them for weeks in the summer. They are late 60s and our kids are 11, 9 and 5. I cannot see my eldest taking care of her younger siblings, but I can definitely see my middle child taking care of both younger and older sibling.

My brother would also take them, but he is currently a single dad going through a divorce. He has one child. We might have him become guardian once his life is a bit more stable.
DH has very old parents that are not close to our kids and 3 siblings that are not suitable for different reasons.

Everyone trying to micromanage what would happen in an unthinkable tragedy is just missing the point. If you and your spouse suddenly died, obviously the brother would step up. Testamentary guardianship is not some kind of prize you give a relative for conducting their lives currently in the way you think is best. Just pick the closest relative you think cares the most about your kids who doesn’t have any true impediments to parenting, and be done with it. It’s more important to think through estate issues to make sure that things are set up so kids’ guardians get access to money to care for them but can’t steal it all.

I think there are quite a few posters here, including myself, who do not have the bolded. My mom is married to a groomer (not my Dad). My Dad is incapable of raising children and abandoned my 10-year-old brother for weeks on end when he had custody. My MIL has dementia. My FIL is a workaholic and is incapable of thinking of anyone but himself. Literally, has never come to my kids' games, does not call him on his birthday or give a gift, spends no 1:1 time with him, etc. He told my husband when he was 18 that if anything happens, he's on his own but that hed be available Sunday evenings if anything came up. His Dad would not return his phone calls or messages until Sunday evening. He lives within 20 miles of our house.

The money part isnt the issue, its the care part.

+1

All the "just pick a relative" people have no idea what it's like to not have that option.

I mean, of all the things to worry about. It’s going to be a horrible tragedy if both parents die either way. Not really worth thinking about IMO.

Well yes of course but you dont add onto trauma by putting them with an abusive or neglectful relative. WTF people.

Yes and have updated more than once. First was my parents, then after DH died I changed it to his out of state sister. Now that my oldest is 20, she would be guardian of her younger siblings (ages 16 and 13). As I developed health issues myself, I’ll be relieved when I get them all to adulthood!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have to do it. We wrote and signed a letter, but it’s nothing official. Our families live abroad. Our kids would go to my parents who regularly take them for weeks in the summer. They are late 60s and our kids are 11, 9 and 5. I cannot see my eldest taking care of her younger siblings, but I can definitely see my middle child taking care of both younger and older sibling.

My brother would also take them, but he is currently a single dad going through a divorce. He has one child. We might have him become guardian once his life is a bit more stable.
DH has very old parents that are not close to our kids and 3 siblings that are not suitable for different reasons.

Everyone trying to micromanage what would happen in an unthinkable tragedy is just missing the point. If you and your spouse suddenly died, obviously the brother would step up. Testamentary guardianship is not some kind of prize you give a relative for conducting their lives currently in the way you think is best. Just pick the closest relative you think cares the most about your kids who doesn’t have any true impediments to parenting, and be done with it. It’s more important to think through estate issues to make sure that things are set up so kids’ guardians get access to money to care for them but can’t steal it all.

I think there are quite a few posters here, including myself, who do not have the bolded. My mom is married to a groomer (not my Dad). My Dad is incapable of raising children and abandoned my 10-year-old brother for weeks on end when he had custody. My MIL has dementia. My FIL is a workaholic and is incapable of thinking of anyone but himself. Literally, has never come to my kids' games, does not call him on his birthday or give a gift, spends no 1:1 time with him, etc. He told my husband when he was 18 that if anything happens, he's on his own but that hed be available Sunday evenings if anything came up. His Dad would not return his phone calls or messages until Sunday evening. He lives within 20 miles of our house.

The money part isnt the issue, its the care part.

+1

All the "just pick a relative" people have no idea what it's like to not have that option.

I mean, of all the things to worry about. It’s going to be a horrible tragedy if both parents die either way. Not really worth thinking about IMO.

Anonymous wrote:Our close friends. They live a few blocks away, their daughter is our daughters' best friend and they attend the same school (she is 2 years old).

And of course we discuss it with them! We asked them if they were willing and the husband is a financial planner so we laid out the financial piece in terms of what was going into the trust, etc.

Taking on someone's kid or kids would be a huge ask so the person accepting should be ready, willing, and able to do it.

I meant two years older, not two years old

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny. DH’s family is all overseas, and I had our kids at 39 and 41 and my only sibling is 8 years older. If we picked my sister then our kids would be at a high risk of not only losing both parents before 18 but then also losing their replacement guardian at a youngish age. Nanny is late-20’s and single but she loves them like her own and would make sure that our family is in their lives but she would also be able to be there for them for decades to come after their extended family have died or succumbed to dementia.

This is … weird. Your nanny is your employee, not your relative. It seems like you think your nanny will continue working for you after your (theoretical) death. And she likely didn’t feel she coule say no if you were still employing her! And yeah, presumably you’re also leaving her a big chunk of money?

You leave the money to/for the kids. Have you really never met with an estate planner?!?

So you assume the nanny is going to properly manage the money? does she get the whole estate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have to do it. We wrote and signed a letter, but it’s nothing official. Our families live abroad. Our kids would go to my parents who regularly take them for weeks in the summer. They are late 60s and our kids are 11, 9 and 5. I cannot see my eldest taking care of her younger siblings, but I can definitely see my middle child taking care of both younger and older sibling.

My brother would also take them, but he is currently a single dad going through a divorce. He has one child. We might have him become guardian once his life is a bit more stable.
DH has very old parents that are not close to our kids and 3 siblings that are not suitable for different reasons.

Everyone trying to micromanage what would happen in an unthinkable tragedy is just missing the point. If you and your spouse suddenly died, obviously the brother would step up. Testamentary guardianship is not some kind of prize you give a relative for conducting their lives currently in the way you think is best. Just pick the closest relative you think cares the most about your kids who doesn’t have any true impediments to parenting, and be done with it. It’s more important to think through estate issues to make sure that things are set up so kids’ guardians get access to money to care for them but can’t steal it all.

I think there are quite a few posters here, including myself, who do not have the bolded. My mom is married to a groomer (not my Dad). My Dad is incapable of raising children and abandoned my 10-year-old brother for weeks on end when he had custody. My MIL has dementia. My FIL is a workaholic and is incapable of thinking of anyone but himself. Literally, has never come to my kids' games, does not call him on his birthday or give a gift, spends no 1:1 time with him, etc. He told my husband when he was 18 that if anything happens, he's on his own but that hed be available Sunday evenings if anything came up. His Dad would not return his phone calls or messages until Sunday evening. He lives within 20 miles of our house.

The money part isnt the issue, its the care part.

+1

All the "just pick a relative" people have no idea what it's like to not have that option.