A relative passed away recently and left a will that named only two of their children as beneficiaries. The third child had already been born when the will was written, but the timing was close enough that there was never a chance to update it before the relative died. A fourth child is on the way and won’t be included either.
Both she and her husband believe that if the relative had lived long enough to revise the will, all four kids would have been included equally. The money that did come through is significant for children their age, not so large that she and her husband couldn’t potentially match it themselves, but substantial enough that the gap between the two older kids and the two younger ones feels real and hard to ignore.
💸 Take Back Control of Your Finances in 2025 💸
Get Instant Access to our free mini course
5 DAYS TO A BETTER BUDGET
She’s been turning the situation over in her head ever since it happened. Part of her feels strongly that all four children should end up in the same position, that leaving two kids with a meaningful financial head start while the other two have nothing creates an imbalance inside the family that will eventually be felt even if nobody talks about it directly. Another part of her wonders if she’s manufacturing a problem that doesn’t need to be solved, whether this is just one of those situations where life doesn’t distribute things evenly and the right response is to be grateful that two of her kids will have something rather than troubled that the other two won’t.
Why this feels harder than it probably should
The complicating factor is that the money didn’t come from her or her husband, which means the normal framework for thinking about fairness between siblings doesn’t quite apply. When parents choose to give one child something they don’t give another, that’s a deliberate decision with a clear person responsible for making it. When an inheritance lands unevenly because of timing and circumstances nobody controlled, the question of who’s responsible for fixing it gets murkier. The relative didn’t intend to leave the younger kids out. The will just didn’t get updated in time.
That distinction matters emotionally even if it doesn’t change the outcome for the kids. She and her husband aren’t the ones who created the imbalance, which makes the obligation to correct it feel less clear-cut than it would if they had made an active choice to treat their children differently. At the same time, the practical result for the kids is the same regardless of how the imbalance came about. Two of them will have something significant when they reach adulthood and two of them won’t, at least not from this source.
What the money will actually mean over time
The significance of an inheritance like this depends a lot on what happens to it between now and when the kids are old enough to use it. If the inherited funds are invested and allowed to grow for fifteen or twenty years, the gap between the older two kids and the younger two could widen considerably by the time all of them are adults. A sum that feels bridgeable now might look very different after compound growth has had time to work on it, which is worth factoring into how urgent the equalization question actually feels.
That’s not an argument for panicking, but it is a reason to think carefully before deciding to simply let the situation sit unchanged. The choice to equalize or not equalize is easier and cheaper to make now than it will be in a decade when the gap has had time to grow.
The case for equalizing
The strongest argument for matching the inheritance for the younger two kids is the one she’s already making to herself, which is that the relative almost certainly would have included all four children if the timing had worked out differently. Acting on what the relative would have wanted, using funds she and her husband can manage to set aside, honors the spirit of the inheritance even if the document itself couldn’t reflect it. It also means all four children start their adult lives from the same place financially, which has real practical value and avoids the kind of quiet resentment that can develop between siblings when they understand their situations aren’t equal.
The argument against is mostly practical. Setting aside a matching amount for two additional children is a real financial commitment, and doing it for a fourth child who hasn’t been born yet adds another layer of uncertainty. If their financial situation changes, making a promise now that becomes difficult to keep later creates its own set of problems.
A middle path worth considering
She doesn’t have to make an all-or-nothing decision right now. One option is to open investment accounts for the younger two children, contribute what they can afford today, and treat equalization as a long-term goal rather than an immediate obligation. That approach lets them work toward the same outcome without committing to a specific number upfront, and it means the younger kids have something growing on their behalf even if it takes years to fully close the gap.
Whatever they decide, getting it into writing as part of their own estate planning makes sense. If the goal is for all four children to be treated equally, building that intention into their wills and financial documents now means the plan doesn’t depend on memory or circumstance to carry it forward.
Featured on Cents + Purpose: