Hypothetical question?

[Teresa in MO]

Hypothetically, can a parent give one child money (we are talking in the tens of thousands) and support that child for a number of years (grown child over 40 who has not worked in over 15 years) honestly say they do not play favorites and treat all their dc equally. Even knowing that doing this is directly hurting another dc because it keeps the chosen child from keeping their word to the other dc. I know this does not make much sense, but that is all the information I can give at this time. I just don't understand how you can do so much for one child and then strongly state that you treat all your children equally and don't play favorites. I mean if you going to do it at least admit your favoring said child.

[kewb]

Does the child not receiving the money need the assistance? If not, then no, the parents are not playing favorites. They are helping the child who needs help.

[snickelfritz]

I had a relative that did something similar.

 

Their reasoning was "To each, according to their need."

 

The one that got the money, "needed" more support. If others "needed" it, they would have (supposedly) gotten it. So, it wasn't favoritism.

[regentrude]

Depends all on the circumstances. The child's needs may be much different than his siblings'.

Take a family with three children. Child A is going to college, doing grad school, getting married, has kids, has a stable family and good income. Child B becomes pregnant in high school, gives birth prematurely to a disabled baby, lives as a single mother at home while going to college, med school, doing residency. Child C is mentally disabled, can not hold a job other than in a sheltered workshop.

The parents greatly support child B financially and with childcare help, support child C, and do not support child A who does not need any assistance. They do not play favorites. They do what each of their children needs. "treating children equally" would make absolutely no sense if that meant equal amount of time and money spent. But it is equal love.

 

So, without further information it is impossible to answer your question.

The family in the example is my own.

[AK_Mom4]

I can see this happening if there was some obvious reason that the supported person needed support - disabled or ill in some fashion - and this was a long-term thing. A parent might easily see this as an obligation - something they are required to do as opposed to a choice that they make. The parent might believe that they are treating all children equally with regards to things that the parents choose to do, but don't consider the obligation to be part of that. The same way you would not consider the amount that you pay to your mortgage company when you consider whether you are being fair in how much you give each child as an allowance.

 

It sounds like you are really feeling hurt by their actions. :grouphug: Family money issues can be very difficult.

[Firestar Academy]

Hypothetically, can a parent give one child money (we are talking in the tens of thousands) and support that child for a number of years (grown child over 40 who has not worked in over 15 years) honestly say they do not play favorites and treat all their dc equally. Even knowing that doing this is directly hurting another dc because it keeps the chosen child from keeping their word to the other dc. I know this does not make much sense, but that is all the information I can give at this time. I just don't understand how you can do so much for one child and then strongly state that you treat all your children equally and don't play favorites. I mean if you going to do it at least admit your favoring said child.

 

i believe that you see it as playing favorites (I would,too). The parent does not see it as playing favorites, just helping out.

 

We have this in my extended family. My Grandmother has 4 sons. 2 have lived with her, for her entire life. the other 2 sons are on thier own, working hard, living life. the 2 that live with her are alcholics and 1 is on drugs.

 

She sees it has 'helping' them, while I, ummmm, don't.

 

robin

[Jean in Newcastle]

If there is no "reasonable" reason that the over 40 year old does not work, then it is usually called enabling. I think that you can enable someone without playing favorites.

[Caroline]

My sister has had more financial needs from my parents than my other sister or me. I don't think she is my parents' favorite. I just think she needs more. My parents certainly love me as much as my sisters, even though I don't have any financial needs from them at the moment. They are always there for me emotionally when I need it. If I needed financial help, I have no doubts that they would do whatever I needed.

[Teresa in MO]

yes, the one not receiving the money is in need and when another of the dc were going to help them they were told not to because they would become dependent on your money. The one receiving the money does not choose to work, they are perfectly capable of working and has an engineering degree.

[Jean in Newcastle]

yes, the one not receiving the money is in need and when another of the dc were going to help them they were told not to because they would become dependent on your money. The one receiving the money does not choose to work, they are perfectly capable of working and has an engineering degree.

 

I don't understand how parents would have any final say in what grown siblings do or don't do to help each other out unless the adult child let them have that power.

[LaxMom]

I had a relative that did something similar.

 

Their reasoning was "To each, according to their need."

 

The one that got the money, "needed" more support. If others "needed" it, they would have (supposedly) gotten it. So, it wasn't favoritism.

 

Yes, I tend to think "equal" is not necessarily "equitable", or "fair". What any of my children need at any given time is different. We try to meet needs on an individual basis.

 

Now... If the basic expectations of the children are different - child A is expected to provide for themselves in all circumstances, without assistance, while child B is not expected to contribute in any way to their own upkeep (assuming that both are mentally/physically capable of doing so, generally speaking, in their own ways) - then that is favoritism, though it really rather stunts the "favorite", I would suppose.

[readinmom]

Out of all honesty, the parents probably don't see it that way. Let's say that other "said" children are self-sufficient and have created a good life for themselves. When looking at the other child, who has had a "hard" life, they feel compelled to give them what they can't give themselves.

 

This hardly seems fair to the other children, who would appreciate the same treatment. I think all of us on the board have either experienced this, or witnessed this. There is no rhyme nor reason to it. The time that it bothers me most is when the one says they "deserve" it.

[Teresa in MO]

well, the dc who was not given any help was in a very dangerous, potentially life threatening situation and their was also grandchildren involved, while the one receiving the help is single with no children.

[justasque]

well, the dc who was not given any help was in a very dangerous, potentially life threatening situation and their was also grandchildren involved, while the one receiving the help is single with no children.

 

Ultimately, though, it's not the dc's money to spend. The parents get to decide, using whatever criteria they want, how to spend their money.

 

Believing you are entitled to someone else's money doesn't usually end well.

[elegantlion]

well, the dc who was not given any help was in a very dangerous, potentially life threatening situation and their was also grandchildren involved, while the one receiving the help is single with no children.

 

I don't know, but I'm sorry you are hurting. :grouphug::grouphug:

 

My parents are very generous to us as adults. Most of what they've done has been in the name of the grandchild. They helped my sister out, but not as much. She also has two children. They surprised me the other day by stating they enjoyed helping ds and us because we openly appreciate it. I don't think that should be criteria, and I was kind of surprised. However, as humans I can see how we'd be more inclined to give when we feel it's more appreciated.

 

My parents are also generous because they've said they wanted to make up for deficits they felt occurred when they were raising us, my sister included.

 

Neither of these may apply to your situation. Again, I'm sorry you're hurting. :grouphug:

[Tap]

I know a family who did this, but it was open and talked about that a tally sheet was being kept, and the money each child was given after age 18, would come off of the inheritance in the end.

 

In their family, each 'gift' was recorded by a signature of the giver/receiver.

 

Supposedly at the death of the principal parties, each person's tally would be balanced out and then any remaining money would be split equally.

[EKS]

I think that a parent can treat children (grown or otherwise) differently without playing favorites. I don't know how this plays into your situation, though.

[BlsdMama]

Hypothetically, can a parent give one child money (we are talking in the tens of thousands) and support that child for a number of years (grown child over 40 who has not worked in over 15 years) honestly say they do not play favorites and treat all their dc equally. Even knowing that doing this is directly hurting another dc because it keeps the chosen child from keeping their word to the other dc. I know this does not make much sense, but that is all the information I can give at this time. I just don't understand how you can do so much for one child and then strongly state that you treat all your children equally and don't play favorites. I mean if you going to do it at least admit your favoring said child.

 

IMO, "favorite" means an emotional connection. Feeling forced to support a child or choosing to do it out of some (real or not) sense of obligation certainly doesn't make them a favored child... Perhaps even the opposite. :D

 

To say you treat all your children equally could indeed be the truth... Meaning: "I would do this for YOU in the same situation even though you aren't requiring it of me."

 

Emotions often cloud actions on all sides.

 

To me, the parent is in an insanely difficult position. She/He/They have my sympathies. To feel obligated to one child and then have the other children be angry/upset/etc. is a horrible place to be. :( Parents want to make ALL their children happy ALL the time and often end up making ALL people involved UNHAPPY a large part of the time. :(

 

Ultimately, though, it's not the dc's money to spend. The parents get to decide, using whatever criteria they want, how to spend their money.

 

Believing you are entitled to someone else's money doesn't usually end well.

 

This is true. And, ultimately, each person has to decide what the cost of each relationship is and if it is worth it. There are very few situations I can think of that I would allow the cost to be my relationship with my parents.

Edited March 26, 2012 by BlsdMama

[SKL]

Believing you are entitled to someone else's money doesn't usually end well.

:iagree:

 

"Unequal help" has gone on a lot in my family. I could choose to be upset about it, but I choose not to focus on it. Thankfully I have found other ways to meet my needs so far.

 

I hope you find a way to meet your needs despite the family situation. :grouphug:

[goldberry]

My sister has two children. Child 1 paid her own way through college, got a great job, got married to man with a VERY generous income. Child 1 now has three kids, is a stay at home mom, is living in a $500K house, with a boat, an RV and kids in expensive private school.

 

Child 2 barely graduated HS, got pregnant, married the dad who is a loser drug user. Child 2 now struggles to take care of herself and her child. Lives BARELY paycheck to paycheck.

 

Sister announces that she plans on leaving her house (worth about $80K) to Child 2, because at least Child 2 will have a place to live and raise the grandchild. The house is basically the only asset my sister has.

 

Child 1 is livid, and says she expects HER HALF of the house. Says it is not "fair" to deprive her of her half of the house (although she has no actual need of the money) due to Child 2's poor choices.

 

Child 2 definitely made some poor choices....but it is my sister's business what she does with her own money. Also, I do take it into consideration that Child 1 does not have any actual need. If she did have a need, then I could see it as favoritism. With no actual need, I don't see it as favoritism, or unfairness.