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?

  • xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    No one is entitled to anyone’s inheritance. The ethics of the situation really depend on the details. Did one child look after the parents in their old age? Doe one child have more needs? Was there a promise to distribute everything evenly?

    If the only reason for exclusion is because one child has depression or anxiety and isn’t the smartest, then that sounds pretty ableist and shitty. If the person really can’t manage the money, why not set up a trust designed to help them out without just handing over lump sums of cash? The one case where exclusion makes sense is if they require long term in patient care since at least in the US, all your money is eaten up by the medical bills before you default to Medicare (unless you have a stupid amount of money and can pay out of pocket for premium care forever)

    • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sounds very US… I had to take some info on the topic here in europe and it appears that there’s a very much unalienable right for kids (and next of kin) to a fair distribution.

      One can literally not change the part of the patrimony going to a child (without resorting to very complex arrangements that seemingly won’t be accepted by a judge should shit hits the fan).

      Even though, for example, one learns he did not father a child -still cannot change the percentage. Tough luck for the other children, the wife…

      Everyone has a right to be protected here. In the grand scheme of things it’s for the best.

      And yeah, ethics is the basis for this simply you have to assume the position of the weakest one involved and not from the perspective of the one with the money ;-)