One of the most common questions people ask is whether an adult child can challenge a parent’s will after being excluded from their estate or left significantly less than expected.
Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, adult children can bring claims for reasonable financial provision from an estate. However, these claims are often far weaker than claimants expect, particularly where the adult child can support themselves.
Many people assume that showing financial need is enough. The courts have made clear that this is not so. While financial need is an essential starting point, an adult child will usually need to show “something more” before the court will interfere with a parent’s freedom to leave their estate as they choose.
What does “something more” mean?
In practice, successful adult child inheritance claims usually involve genuine vulnerability or dependency rather than simple disappointment. The court look for circumstances such as poor physical or mental health, disability affecting earning capacity, a serious housing need, or evidence that financial support is required to help the claimant regain independence through treatment, retraining or stable accommodation.
By contrast, where an adult child is healthy, educated, and capable of work, claims under the Inheritance Act 1975 are much less likely to succeed, even where finances are tight or the claimant feels unfairly treated.
This is why two claimants with similar financial circumstances can receive very different outcomes. One may succeed because there is clear evidence of vulnerability or genuine maintenance needs. Another may fail because the court considers them capable of maintaining themselves without provision from the estate.
Why evidence matters
Evidence is an important deciding factor in adult child claims against estates. The court will expect detailed and realistic evidence about income, expenditure, debts, housing needs and future financial position. Where health issues are relied upon, medical evidence will normally be required.
Claims frequently fail because the evidence does not support the level of need being asserted. Courts are often sceptical of exaggerated financial schedules, inconsistent disclosure, or claims which appear driven more by entitlement than genuine necessity.
The quality of witness evidence can also be critical. A claimant who presents as unreliable or evasive can significantly damage their own case.
Estrangement and Family Relationships
Family history often plays an important role in these disputes. Where there has been estrangement between parent and child, the court will usually want to understand why the relationship broke down and whether either side was responsible. Estrangement does not automatically prevent a claim, but it can influence how the court approaches the question of reasonable financial provision.
Adult child claims under the Inheritance Act 1975 are highly fact-sensitive, and understanding the strength or weakness of the evidence at an early stage is often critical to achieving a sensible outcome.
If you would like to discuss your personal circumstances regarding an inheritance act claim do not hesitate to contact me on alistair.rustemeyer@cognitivelaw.co.uk.
The author, Alistair Rustemeyer, qualified as a solicitor in 1994 and an accredited mediator in 1999. Alistair is a Full Member of ACTAPS and a specialist contentious probate solicitor in Brighton and Hove. His priority is to resolve estate conflicts smoothly through mediation, protecting your interests without unnecessary court litigation across all contested probate and Inheritance Act claims. For a free initial discussion, contact Alistair at alistair.rustemeyer@cognitivelaw.co.uk or call 0330 400 4499
