2 Comments

Ilyce, I think your response was on point. The woman says she intends to care for a sister who will need care for the rest of her life; giving the woman the sister's share makes sense and is not unfair. Of course, no one knows with certainty whether the woman will, indeed, set aside 1/2 of what she receives to save or invest for his sister. As for the brother, he is a slug and most likely won't even appreciate the more-than-fair 1/3 share he is receiving.

I would add another factor to consider. Some have children who are childless; in such a case, the childless son or daugther will not face a lifetime of raising, caring for and educating (for who knows how long?) a child or children. So maybe allotting more to the kids who have dependents makes sense and is not unfair.

Thanks for a great article.

Expand full comment

Thanks for these thoughts. I just wonder, though, if parents should prioritize children who give them grandchildren.

I recently read a statistic that just 18% of U.S. residents are families with children. More people are deciding not to bring children into this world. A parent who gives unequally based on whether grandchildren are in the picture could unintentionally drive a wedge through the family.

That said, providing a pot of money for the education/support of all grandchildren, or a special needs grandchild (if there is one) could be a way to go.

Readers, what have you seen work?

Expand full comment