Dad Refuses To Give His Younger Daughter’s Wedding Fund To Help Older Daughter’s House Deposit

When it comes to children, it’s natural for parents to want to help them out, especially when they face major life milestones like buying a home. But what happens when one child’s financial struggles threaten to upset the balance of fairness between siblings?

This father is facing a difficult choice. While both of his daughters inherited a large sum from their grandmother, it’s his younger daughter, Lily, who has been responsible with her savings and is now ready to buy a home.

Meanwhile, his older daughter, Rose, has been struggling financially for years.

When Rose asked for financial help with a house deposit, the father was torn.

The OP’s conflict about whether to redirect a future wedding fund toward one daughter’s house deposit raises questions far beyond money, it touches on fairness, expectations, sibling dynamics, and the emotional weight of parental support.

At its core, this isn’t strictly a financial debate. It’s about how parents choose to allocate limited resources and how those choices ripple through family relationships.

In this case, the OP and his wife have two daughters at similar stages of adulthood but with very different financial profiles. Lily has managed her finances responsibly and is in a strong position to buy a home with a large deposit.

Rose, conversely, struggles financially and has not saved much, even after inheriting money. Now Rose is facing the reality of a smaller deposit and a harder path to homeownership.

The OP’s wife wants to use the money earmarked for a wedding fund to help Rose secure a house for the family’s grandchild. The OP wants to preserve the fund for its intended purpose and avoid uneven treatment between daughters.

Research supports the idea that parental financial support to adult children has real relational consequences.

One longitudinal study found that parental financial assistance tends to correlate with improved closeness between parents and adult children, though effects on self‑esteem and well‑being are more variable and dependent on life circumstances like employment or parenting status.

This makes it clear: money isn’t just money, it affects relationships and sense of security.

At the same time, perceived parental favoritism can strain sibling bonds.

Adult children who believe a parent is currently favoring one sibling financially or emotionally are more likely to report lower closeness and increased conflict.

Past research also shows that unequal financial support can weaken sibling ties when one child receives more monetary help than another.

These patterns resonate with the OP’s situation, reallocating savings to one daughter but not the other could, if perceived as favoritism, fuel sibling rivalry or emotional distance.

Another relevant study on attitudes toward parental financial support found that parents often support adult children out of a sense of responsibility or sacrifice, rather than strict fairness.

This aligns with the OP’s wife’s motivation, she sees Rose’s situation as a hardship deserving of extra help. Yet well‑intentioned support can lead to unintended narratives about fairness and worth among siblings.

Moreover, the Family Stress Model explains how economic pressures can affect family dynamics, not just through financial strain, but by influencing psychological well‑being and interpersonal conflict.

Applying this framework, the stress around Rose’s housing situation could heighten underlying tensions about responsibility, fairness, and parental roles.

The OP should focus on communication and clarity rather than abrupt financial shifts.

Keeping the wedding fund intact doesn’t have to mean rejecting Rose’s needs out of hand, it could mean opening a structured family dialogue about who needs what, why, and how resources can be fairly allocated without undermining individual autonomy or long‑term plans.

A possible approach is for the OP and his wife to meet with both daughters, explain their intentions for the future fund, and discuss Rose’s financial situation with empathy.

They could explore alternative support options (like helping with budgeting, co‑signing loans, or phased contributions) that preserve fairness while addressing real needs.

That way, the family avoids the perception of favoritism and keeps communication open, which research suggests is key to maintaining healthy parent‑child and sibling relationships.

Ultimately, the core lesson from the OP’s story is this: money distributed without context can divide, but money shared with clear purpose and open dialogue can build understanding.

Balancing financial planning with emotional honesty doesn’t just help one daughter, it supports the long‑term health and connection of the whole family.

Check out how the community responded:

These Redditors strongly supported the OP, arguing that giving the money to Rose would not solve the underlying issues of poor financial habits.

This group also sided with the OP, suggesting that giving Rose more money would not help her learn how to manage her finances.

These commenters pointed out that the wife was likely enabling Rose’s poor decisions out of favoritism.

This group reiterated that the OP should not give the money to Rose, regardless of her child or her situation.

This is one of those tough situations where both sides feel justified, but emotions run deep. The OP wants to be fair and not play favorites, especially when it comes to a planned future for Lily’s wedding.

Yet, it’s hard to ignore the financial strain Rose is under with a child and a partner who hasn’t been proactive.

Is it really fair to take money earmarked for one daughter’s future to support another’s immediate needs? How do you balance helping one child without alienating the other? Let us know where you stand, share your thoughts below!