No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
There's no one size fits all answer here, it's going to depend on how much money, how severe the childs disabilities are and what their care needs are, and what other sort of inheritance might be on the table ( for example one child gets the money and another child gets the house)
If the child is able to live on their own, then yeah, it's a dick move and the parents are just playing favorites and being ableist.
If they have significant care needs- nursing home, psychiatric treatment, home health aides, visiting nurses, etc. then there might be some logical arguments to be made. If they're already qualifying for some sort of government assistance then a large windfall of cash could potentially disrupt those benefits since they now have too much money to qualify.
That can be a real headache to navigate, they may need to arrange all new care for themselves, maybe switch doctors, find new housing, etc. which may be a lot for them to manage depending on the extent of their disabilities, and unless that inheritance is incredibly large it will probably run out at some point and leave them in a position where they need to navigate the system to get back on those government benefits, which is often no small feat.
So there could potentially be situations where it's better for them to not leave them money and cause significant disruptions to their care and living arrangements.
This is all totally hypothetical without knowing the specifics of the situation. There's a million different things to consider here and everyone's situation is unique, and at best we're getting one side of this story and don't really know what the parents thoughts and reasoning are since we haven't heard in directly from them (and it could very well be that their reason is just as shitty as it appears on the surface, I won't discount that possibility)
You set up a trust (in the US they have a specific trust structure for disabled adults) and shield the beneficiary from the consequences of appearing to receive a disqualifying windfall.
This is true, and I did think about mentioning that but decided to keep it brief because once I start talking about trusts I'd find myself out of my depth pretty quickly and probably open up a rabbit hole of other financial strategies I'm not prepared or qualified to go down (and also to keep my comment at a more readable length)
But since we opened that can of worms (and like I said, this is getting out of my depth, so there's a very real possibility that some or all of what I have to say after this is wrong, so take it for what it's worth)
We also don't know how much money we're talking about here. The line between qualifying for benefits and not can be razor thin sometimes, and while we might assume that we're talking about 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars or even more where a trust would absolutely make sense, we might actually only be talking about a couple thousand bucks, maybe not even enough to afford a couple months of rent depending on where you are, but potentially enough to fuck up someone's benefits depending on where some government bean counters drew the line. It might be difficult or impossible to find a financial institution willing to act as a trustee for such a small amount, and there may not be any individual they trust to fill that role, and once the lawyers and such are paid there may not even be much left over.
There's also the possibility that the parents are counting on the sibling(s) to sort of act as trustees without putting it in writing. We don't know what their relationships and personalities are like, or what conversations they've had with their parents that maybe OP isn't privy to. There could be an understanding there that they're getting everything so that they can continue to provide for their disabled sibling after the parents are gone, and OP hasn't been made aware of that (some people are really uncomfortable talking about this kind of stuff and avoid it even though they really should) or misunderstood what the intention is. That of course depends on the siblings being trustworthy and generally having their shit together well enough, which isn't a given of course and their situation could change drastically.
There's also the possibility that a trust is exactly what's happening and OP either misunderstood it or just plain doesn't like it. A lot of people out there are pretty clueless about financial matters. If the siblings were named as the trustee (it's often not a good idea to have the trustee be a close relative, but that's neither here nor there) I could see some people viewing the situation as "they left all the money to my siblings" because they're not getting a big one time payout and the money has to go through their siblings in some fashion.
Again, I'm talking all in hypotheticals, there are countless "ifs," "ands" and "buts" here, we don't know the specifics of OPs situation so we can only speculate.