Can This Child Be an Heir?

[quincy]

There is an interesting opinion piece that I linked on the other board (you know the one) that touches on this topic, albeit in terms of a different word that has fallen out of acceptable usage. Might consider reading that...

There are MANY words that were once a part of the English language that either are no longer used or whose meanings have changed over time.

“Nice” was once used to describe the foolish or ignorant, and “awe” meant dread and “awful” awe-inspiring, and “naughty” were those without (the poor or needy), and “egregious” (a word I use with some frequency) used to mean illustrious.

The English language evolves.

 

[AlmostThere]

Why label the child at all? The only people who should have a concern about the child's parentage in terms of the inheritance are step-parents.

 

[quincy]

Why label the child at all? The only people who should have a concern about the child's parentage in terms of the inheritance are step-parents.

I find most labels unnecessary. If the concerns are over who inherits what, however, the clearer the terms the better.

 

[not2cleverRed]

But he wants it worked out somehow that he has no legal claim to my family land. It is possible that after our child soon turns 18 we may split up but stay married for insurance purposes. And we already have split bank accounts. I am OK giving my husband our marital home. This all feels complicated.

Do you have a will?

Does he have a will?

You should each have a will. For better or worse, a parent can choose to disinherit a child in their will. Or disinherit all their children for that matter, and leave it to whoever or whatever they please. And being an executer of a will does not make a person the heir of assets.

A competent lawyer can clear up this confusion you have in a jiffy and put you on track to competent estate planning.

I am not sure why the thread got hijacked on the subject of semantics. The fact is, a child can be disinherited. And the usual way to disinherit a child is with a will. If paternity has not been legally established, one should still explicitly disinherit the child in one's will, if that is one's wishes.

But then, I am also baffled by how you think a woman loses all rights to property upon marriage. Women are no longer chattel - they can own separate property.

 

[quincy]

Do you have a will?

Does he have a will?

You should each have a will. For better or worse, a parent can choose to disinherit a child in their will. Or disinherit all their children for that matter, and leave it to whoever or whatever they please. And being an executer of a will does not make a person the heir of assets.

A competent lawyer can clear up this confusion you have in a jiffy and put you on track to competent estate planning.

I am not sure why the thread got hijacked on the subject of semantics. The fact is, a child can be disinherited. And the usual way to disinherit a child is with a will. If paternity has not been legally established, one should still explicitly disinherit the child in one's will, if that is one's wishes.

But then, I am also baffled by how you think a woman loses all rights to property upon marriage. Women are no longer chattel - they can own separate property.

The “diversion” was because of a now-deleted reference to “bastard” child. Bluefavor’s concerns were addressed already on page one of the thread.