Parental obligations towards a child

AnRothar

From reading different threads there exists a parental obligation to their "child".

My first question is, in general terms is there a definition of what constitutes a "child" ?

dennyk

A child would generally be anyone under the age of 18. Anyone 18 or older is an adult and responsible for themselves, unless they are a Ward of Court due to mental incapacity.

silent_spark

It depends on the context. A child can include someone over the age of 18 in full time education. A child could be a grown adult in the case of a will. What’s the context?

FitzElla

A child is a person under the age of 18. This would be the most general and widely accepted definition of a child.

AnRothar

silent_spark wrote: »

It depends on the context. A child can include someone over the age of 18 in full time education. A child could be a grown adult in the case of a will. What’s the context?

Thanks.
That is what I am wondering.
Context 1 relates to "full time education".
Part 1.
I would assume that for most people they will leave 2nd level and go straight to a 3 or 4 year degree course at 3rd level.
In this scenario would parental obligation continue until graduation?
Regardless of age?

Part 2.
A child decides to take a "gap year" immediately after leaving cert ( end of 2nd level).
What legal obligation would a parent have to support a child when they return and wish to commence further studies?
Assume said "gap year" is a minimum of 12 months and child is now 18+ years of age (legal adult(?)).

Part 3
A child enters the workforce immediately after 2nd level and wishes many years later to enter 3rd level (say 23 years old or older).
In this scenario would a parent have any legal obligation to support them ( morality is not relevant)?

Part 4
A child leaves 2nd level and enters 3rd level and successfully graduates (assume to masters) and then decides that said qualification is not what they want and wishes to undertake a totally new area of study.
Again the query relates to what legal obligation a parent has in this scenario?

I will reserve the context of a will and adult "children" for next.

dennyk

What do you mean by "parental obligation" exactly? Once your child is 18 years old, you have no further legal obligation to them at all as a parent; you can send them off on their own with no financial support whatsoever. You also aren't legally obligated to pay for their 3rd level education, though their eligibility for SUSI and other financial aid might be affected by your income if they are under 23 or still living with you, as the government expects you to contribute to their third level education (but does not require it legally). If you are divorced and paying child maintenance to your ex-spouse, that might continue as long as the child in question is in full-time education and still under 23, but if you are the custodial parent or you are still married, you aren't obligated to pay for your child's third level education.

AnRothar

dennyk wrote: »

What do you mean by "parental obligation" exactly?

Not really sure.
I was under the impression that a parent was "obliged" (legally) to (financially) support a child until they had finished education.

Once your child is 18 years old, you have no further legal obligation to them at all as a parent; you can send them off on their own with no financial support whatsoever.

That's sort of what I was wondering about.

wrote:

You also aren't legally obligated to pay for their 3rd level education, though their eligibility for SUSI and other financial aid might be affected by your income if they are under 23 or still living with you, as the government expects you to contribute to their third level education (but does not require it legally).

So the Government indirectly expects you to find their education but it's not written down explicitly?

if you are divorced and paying child maintenance to your ex-spouse, that might continue as long as the child in question is in full-time education and still under 23, but if you are the custodial parent or you are still married, you aren't obligated to pay for your child's third level education.

Interesting.

Thank you for that.

AnRothar

dennyk wrote: »

What do you mean by "parental obligation" exactly?

Context part 2.
I have often followed threads on boards where there is "discussions" surrounding inheritance and wills.

So in this context what is a "child"?

dennyk

AnRothar wrote: »

Context part 2.
I have often followed threads on boards where there is "discussions" surrounding inheritance and wills.

So in this context what is a "child"?

In the context of a will or probate, "child" would usually refer to the direct offspring of the deceased, or to their legally adopted offspring, whether said offspring is an adult or a minor. Their status as adult or minor may affect how the inheritance is handled, however (e.g. assets inherited by minor children are often held in trust by a parent or other legal guardian of the child or placed in a separate legal trust to be distributed to the child in question when they reach adulthood, or another age specified in a will or existing trust, since minor children don't have the legal ability to hold or manage many such assets themselves).

AnRothar

dennyk wrote: »

In the context of a will or probate, "child" would usually refer to the direct offspring of the deceased, or to their legally adopted offspring,

Again thanks.


Based on the above

direct offspring of the deceased

or to their legally adopted offspring,

Could a person who is legally adopted have 2 "entitlements(?)" their biological parent and their adopted parents?
Or does the process of "legal adoption" sever all ties (from a legal perspective) with their biological family?


Another question relating to will/probate/inheritance

Their status as adult or minor may affect how the inheritance is handled,.

Often mentioned is the phrase of "adequate provision".
I can see the reasoning behind making sure that a "child" (under 18 and into 3rd level (ish)) is looked after but am also curious as to an "adult" "child".


Over 18 and in the eyes of the state an adult who should be capable of looking after themselves.
So the concept of adequate provision should mean something different or have a different weighting?



Example 1

I have children all over 18 so i decide to leave my estate to the local cats and dogs home.
Do they have a legal recourse to challenge my intentions?


Example 2

Child "A" has worked the Business/Farm/Minded the parent but in my will everything is shared equally.

In this scenario child "A" is given no explicit understanding that they will get a specific benefit.
Do they have a legal recourse to challenge my intentions?

Peregrinus

AnRothar wrote: »

Could a person who is legally adopted have 2 "entitlements(?)" their biological parent and their adopted parents?
Or does the process of "legal adoption" sever all ties (from a legal perspective) with their biological family?

The effect of an adoption order is that tjhe adoped child is " considered, with regard to the rights and duties of parents and children in relation to each other, as the child of the adopters born to them in lawful wedlock" and the natural parents "lose all parental rights and [are] freed from all parental duties".

AnRothar wrote: »

Example 1

I have children all over 18 so i decide to leave my estate to the local cats and dogs home.
Do they have a legal recourse to challenge my intentions?

Yes. But the challenge may not succeed.

Under Succession Act 1956 section 117, the child can apply to court to argue that "the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means, whether by his will or otherwise". If the court agrees, it can "order that such provision shall be made for the child out of the estate as the court thinks just".

The issue here is not about you leaving your money to the cats and dogs on your death; it's what you did for your child when alive, having regard to your means. Let's assume you have a few shillings (because, otherwise, nobody is going to fight over your estate). So you could have afforded to support your children, eductate them, launch them into their careers, support them as they established themselves. Did you? If you did, a section 117 application is unlikely to get very far. Whereas if you disowned them, refused to acknowledge them as your own, refused to pay for any education after they passed the compulsory school attendance age, etc, etc, it might be a different story.

AnRothar wrote: »

Example 2

Child "A" has worked the Business/Farm/Minded the parent but in my will everything is shared equally.

In this scenario child "A" is given no explicit understanding that they will get a specific benefit.
Do they have a legal recourse to challenge my intentions?

Again, under section 117, they can have a go. If, e.g, they gave up other career or life opportunities in order to work the land or run the business, they could argue either that there was an understood expectation, even if no explicit commitment, that the farm/business would come to them, or simply that in the circumstances you would be failing in your moral duty not to leave them at least a greater share of the farm/business. And the argument would be strengthened if they couldn't have run the farm/business without you. The career and other sacrifices you have made for them create a moral obligation.

Everything depends on the circumstances. If one child works the land and another child has a disability and will never be able to support themselves financially, there's another moral obligation at play there that needs to be taken into account. Or, if you worked the land for them but also treated them very badly in some other way (e.g. stealin from them to feed your gambling habit) that would be a relevant consideration.

So you can't reduce this to simple rules about how old a child can be or what share of the estate they can expect. Everything depends on a holistic consideration of all the relevant circumstances, of which the parent-child relationship is only one.

Successfuly section 117 applications are, I think, comparatively rare.

AnRothar

Thank you for the very comprehensive reply.


I follow the legal threads as well as some in accommodation and property hence my curiosity.

it's what you did for your child when alive, having regard to your means.

Doing it.

Let's assume you have a few shillings

When the time comes who knows but with 2 it will be a 50/50 split.
Keeping it simple.:)