A mother’s decision reshaped her family’s future when she chose to rewrite her will, directing the family house and car mostly toward her older daughter who struggles with ADHD and holds a demanding retail job with little savings. The younger daughter, meanwhile, enjoys a comfortable life as a tech project manager married to a doctor, living in a million-dollar home with two children and a combined high income that leaves her secure.
Years of extra support for the one who needed it more had already created tension, but this unequal split ignited fresh anger. The thriving daughter felt overlooked despite her independence, accusing her mom of lifelong favoritism that now extended beyond death. The mother stood firm, insisting the adjustment simply addressed real need rather than preference.
A mother plans an unequal inheritance favoring her daughter with ADHD over her successful one.
Family inheritance choices is difficult. OP has two daughter. In this case, most people would say “put it 50/50”. OP initially thought so, until you realize there is one child who is thriving, while the other with ADHD is still finding their footing.
The mom sees her plan as practical support for her daughter with ADHD, who’s faced lifelong challenges without early interventions that kids get today. She’s prioritizing the house and car for stability, while leaving financial assets more to the well-off daughter. It’s a classic “fair vs. equal” dilemma: equal splits ignore real differences in circumstances, but unequal ones can sting like favoritism.
Many experts argue that unequal inheritances are increasingly common and often justified when addressing genuine needs. Research shows that more than one-third of parents with wills plan to divide estates unequally among children, often due to varying financial situations or life challenges. This shift reflects changing family dynamics where parents aim for equity over strict equality.
Yet the backlash is real: perceived favoritism can damage sibling relationships long-term. Studies on parental favoritism reveal it often leads to higher depressive symptoms and lower psychological well-being in adulthood for those who feel disfavored.
One key finding highlights that it’s the perception of unequal treatment rather than actual differences that most strongly affects mental health outcomes in adult children.
A practical middle ground many estate planners suggest is using a trust for the less-secure child. This could protect assets while ensuring they’re used wisely, avoiding outright gifts that might disappear quickly.
For instance, a special needs trust or similar setup allows controlled distributions, especially helpful when conditions like ADHD impact financial management.
Experts emphasize communicating openly with all children beforehand to reduce resentment, explaining the reasoning clearly can make a huge difference.
Ultimately, there’s no one-size-fits-all rule. The goal is thoughtful planning that honors your values while minimizing family rifts. If the intent is truly to support without punishing success, options like trusts or partial adjustments might preserve harmony.
Here’s how people reacted to the post:
Some people judge the mom as the AH for clearly favoring Emma over Sam in the will despite Sam’s stability and past disadvantages.
Some people suggest using a trust or other structured arrangements to help Emma without overtly favoring her or disinheriting Sam.
Some people argue for a more equal or fair split like 50/50 or adjusted percentages while acknowledging Emma’s struggles.
Some people defend the parent’s plan as not favoritism but practical help for the struggling child, and share supportive personal experiences.
At its core, this story shows how inheritance isn’t just about money, it’s loaded with years of family history, perceived slights, and hopes for the future. The mom’s heart seems in the right place, wanting to give her struggling daughter a real leg up, but the rift with her capable daughter highlights how even well-intentioned plans can feel unfair.
Do you side with equal shares no matter what, or is adjusting for real needs the kinder move? Would a trust have softened the blow here? Drop your thoughts below, we’re all ears!
