Is it ethical for a parent to distribute inheritance based on the child(ren)'s mental capacity (aka refusing to give an inheritance to child(ren) with reduced mental capacity)?

I'm NOT the parent in question. Just a FYI.

And by mental capacity, I mean like not just IQ, but also other mental conditions like depression, ADD/ADHD, etc...

Like the child(ren) has not done anything wrong like crime or misbehave, but simply the parent thinking that giving an inhertance to (in their view) a "mentally disabled" child is a waste and "would just end up in the hands of government". And they justify it since they think that "the kid can just get disability income anyways". (Location is USA, for reference)

I personally think this is just very ableist... what do you think? Is it okay for parents to do that?

You're viewing a single thread.

63 comments

My brother is very smart, but he has other disabilities that nobody can see. My mom has already planned on willing his house to me so he can continue to live there.
On paper it may not look fair, but the alternative would lead to him being homeless, so it would be unethical to do otherwise.
- Couldn't the alternative be let the house to him? I don't see how you getting the house guarantees that he's not getting homeless.
  
  To qualify for some benefits you can't have any assets. The state forces you to sell your assets and pay for care before they will chip in.
  
  Hello boring dystopia
  
  Make sense in this nightmare we live in.
  
  This isn't what OP is talking about, however.
  OP's parents are assholes.
  
  No, he doesn't have the capacity to take care of the basics to keep it. Playing the utilities, taxes, maintaining the property, etc.
  
  You can still help him do those things even if the house is his... Like, if he doesn't have the house in his name, you can kick him out if you are a dick and there is nothing protecting him. If the house is his, you cannot do that, "best" you could do is stop helping out with the bills and such.
  
  A family in that sort of situation has considered many options. Willing the house to the brother is the easiest, the poster and their mother have reasons for opting against it. They are likely good reasons; in the broader sense, willing property to someone who cannot care for it can in many scenarios be a bad idea.
  It’s dangerous to assume the brother would be safe from predation if he owned his home; the poster could do a lot worse than just not paying the bills. This person apparently lacks the ability to pay taxes and ensure proper maintenance. Even just to help with that, the poster will need access to their brother’s banking and tax info. If the brother is compliant it would not be difficult for someone to take advantage of that situation.
  Alternately, using their legal ownership of the home the brother could potentially shut the poster out and might actively sabotage efforts to maintain and pay for the home. In that case the property could suffer substantial damage, become dangerous/uninhabitable, or even be lost despite the poster’s efforts. Many people have destructive tendencies.
  The more certain way to protect the house for the brother would be to place it in a trust, but that’s not a panacea. Setting up an ironclad trust to prevent selling the house is great until the brother can’t get up the stairs, or the whole family decides to move to Canada, or the brother goes into assisted living, or the property value skyrockets. A trust will also have tax implications and potential costs that need to be considered.
  I assume and hope the mother has been advised by a decent estate lawyer on their options. There are scenarios where willing a house to a sibling is the best course of action. I wish the poster luck and hope they’ll act in the interest of their brother for their entire lives.
  
  You hit the nail on the head.
  We want to keep him safe, and that person saying otherwise proves one of my points. On paper, it DOES look shady or unfair, but nobody knows the whole situation, and sorry, you're not going to, because that's his business, not yours.

63 comments