Estate planners use the term “natural objects of one’s bounty” to refer to the people who are expected to receive a share of one’s property upon death. Usually, the natural object of a person’s gift is a close family member who will share in the inheritance if the person dies without a will. For example, if a woman has a husband and three children, the four individuals are considered natural objects of her gift. In the vast majority of cases, children expect to take an equal share of their parents’ inheritance. However, there are times when a parent decides to bequeath more inheritance to one child than the other or to completely deprive one child of the inheritance rights. Parents can legally disqualify a child in all states except Louisiana. This article explains the reasons why a parent might consider disenfranchising a child and suggests some less drastic alternatives that parents can consider.
Reasons for Revoking Children’s Inheritance Rights
Deprivation of a child’s inheritance is not as rare as some people think. Here are some reasons a parent may have for removing a child from their will.
– Lack of need. Parents can exclude a child from the will because other children need more help. For example, if children are brain surgeons, social workers, and undiscovered artists, parents can leave everything to social workers and artists because brain surgeons are able to provide for their own families.
– Children are provided for already. A parent may have given more help to one child than to another in their lifetime. For example, if a parent enrolls a brain surgeon through college, medical school, and other training, the parent may feel that the child has received his or her share of the family fortune.
– Dependent parents. An elderly father lives with his daughter and family in his declining years. He took care of her business, drove her to medical appointments, and otherwise provided for her needs. If not for his daughter’s support, the father would have been forced to live in a nursing home. Two sons live out of state and rarely visit their father. In gratitude for his daughter’s help, the father may decide to leave all his possessions to him, with the son taking little or nothing.
– Exile. A father has two sons and a daughter. Daughter and one son excelled in school, college, and followed in their father’s footsteps in military service. Another son dropped out of high school and lived with a row of women holding odd jobs. The father, a high-ranking officer, believed that his son’s failure had a bad impact on their entire family. The father advised his son that he was no longer welcome in the family. His son drifted off to another state and the estrangement lasted for years. The father left all his possessions to the successful son and daughter, completely eliminating the other son.
– Children with disabilities. A family has three children, one of whom has autism. It is not clear whether a child with autism will be able to lead an independent life. The parents’ biggest fear is what might happen to their son after they both die. Rather than dividing their property into three equal parts, parents decide to leave all or most of their property in a special needs trust for a child with autism.
– Controlling parents. A dominant mother has one child, a son. Throughout his life, the son never failed to live up to his mother’s high expectations. After college and law school, his son fell in love with a free-spirited woman who used drugs occasionally and made a living writing poetry and short stories. The mother strongly disagreed with the relationship and deprived her son of inheritance because the son married the woman without her consent. The mother left all her property to her nieces and nephews.
– Work ethic. Parents from poor backgrounds put themselves through college and graduate school. He founded a company and made millions by public offering. The father believed that his children should make the same effort as he did rather than live off his wealth for the rest of their lives. The father left $100,000 for each child and donated the rest to charity.
Caution Note
The waiver of a child’s inheritance rights cannot be taken lightly because it can be a very emotional step on both sides. Parents who make a will that disqualifies a child may feel guilty for the rest of their lives. A child who does not know about being disenfranchised until after the death of his parents may be devastated when he learns of his parents’ refusal.
Remember that a will is not valid until the testator dies. Many things can happen during an interim period. For example, a mother and daughter who have been estranged for years may reconcile in the days or hours before the mother’s death. The mother can state before witnesses in her hospital room that she regrets having disenfranchised her daughter and that she now wants her daughter to share her estate. However, unless the mother revokes or changes her will, her verbal statement cannot change the terms of the written will.
Irreconcilable differences cause a father to disqualify a 20-year-old son and all his sons’ descendants. All his property was handed over to two other children. Subsequently, the son married and had a child. The birth of a grandchild changes everything. The father now wants the part of the child who was deprived of his inheritance to go to the grandchildren. If time permits and the father does not procrastinate, he can execute the codicil for the will reserved for the grandchildren. If the will is not changed, both children and grandchildren will be eliminated.
Conclusion
Some say that depriving a child of the right of inheritance is unnatural or even immoral. However, it is advisable not to be judgmental, as looking at a family situation from the outside in does not always reveal the true picture. Even if everyone involved agrees that the disenfranchisement of a child is unfair, the parent has the right to dispose of his property in any legal way he deems appropriate.
