If We Both Die, When and How Should Our Kids Get Their Inheritance?

If my spouse and I both died tomorrow, who would handle the money for our kids? Should they get it all at once? Should someone hold it for them? And how do we know when they're ready?

Those are the questions that matter.

Most parents start with:

“Everything equally to our kids.”

That's a good start. But it only answers how much each child gets.

It doesn't answer:

• Who manages the money after you're gone?

• Who takes over if that person can't do it?

• If your children are still young, should their money stay together for a while?

• When should each child get control of their own inheritance?

• What happens if one child is ready and another isn't?

You don't need to know trust law to answer those questions.

You know your kids.

The lawyer's job is to turn your answers into a trust that works.

Start With This Question

Imagine you and your spouse both died today.

After the bills, taxes and administration are finished, your child's inheritance is $1 million.

Now ask:

Would I be comfortable handing my child a check for $1 million today and saying, “It's yours”?

Ask that question separately for every child.

If the answer is yes, giving that child an inheritance outright may be perfectly reasonable.

If your reaction is:

“Absolutely not.”

the next question is simply:

Why not?

Maybe they're young.

Maybe they're 32 but still terrible with money.

Maybe they gamble.

Maybe they're struggling with drugs or alcohol.

Maybe they're easily talked into bad investments.

Maybe they're with someone you don't trust.

Maybe they're completely responsible but own a business or work in a profession where lawsuits are a real possibility.

You don't need to put a label on your child.

You just need to identify what worries you about handing them the entire inheritance today.

If We Don't Give Them the Money Right Away, Who Handles It?

That's the trustee.

This may be one of the most important decisions in your estate plan.

Don't automatically pick somebody because they're:

the oldest child, your closest sibling, or the person whose feelings will be hurt if you don't pick them.

Instead ask:

If I'm dead, do I trust this person to handle a large amount of money for my kids?

And then ask the harder question:

Can this person say no to my child when saying no is the right answer?

Because eventually the trustee may hear:

“I need $100,000 to start a business.”

“I want to buy this house.”

“I need money right now.”

Sometimes the right answer will be yes.

Sometimes it will be no.

Sometimes it will be:

“I'll help you, but we're not doing it that way.”

California law treats the trustee as a fiduciary. Among other duties, the trustee must administer the trust solely in the beneficiaries' interests, act impartially when there are multiple beneficiaries, and use reasonable care, skill and caution in administering the trust. Cal. Prob. Code §§16002, 16003, 16040.

So don't ask:

“Who deserves to be trustee?”

Ask:

“Who would I trust to make good decisions for my kids when I'm not here?”

Should We Pick One Trustee or Two?

Either can work.

One trustee is simpler.

One person makes the decisions.

One person deals with the bank, investments, real estate, accountant and beneficiaries.

There's no built-in disagreement between two trustees.

But one person also has a lot of responsibility.

You need to trust that person.

Two trustees can provide checks and balances.

Maybe your brother understands money.

Your sister understands your children.

You think together they would make better decisions than either one alone.

That can make sense.

But here's the problem:

What happens when they disagree?

California's default rule is that when a power is given to two or more trustees, they must act unanimously unless the trust says otherwise. Cal. Prob. Code §15620.

So:

“Let's just name both of them.”

isn't always the easy compromise it sounds like.

If they don't work well together, you've built their disagreement into your trust.

The real question is:

Would these two people actually make decisions well together?

If not, one good trustee may be better than two fighting trustees.

And if you do want two, the trust should be clear about how they make decisions.

What If Our Trustee Can't Do It When the Time Comes?

This happens.

You name your brother today.

He's 62 and perfectly capable.

You don't die for another 20 years.

Now he's 82.

Maybe he's sick.

Maybe he died before you.

Maybe he moved away.

Maybe he simply says:

“I love your kids, but I don't want this job.”

So name backups.

Think:

First choice → backup → another backup

California law gives priority to the practical replacement method or successor trustee you put into the trust. If that method fails, the Probate Code provides additional ways to fill the vacancy, ultimately including court appointment. Cal. Prob. Code §15660.

I'd rather have you pick the backups now than have your children figure out who should manage the trust after you're gone.

What If Our Kids Are Still Young?

This raises a different question:

Do we split the money between the kids immediately, or keep it together as one family fund for a while?

Suppose you have three children:

21, 16 and 10.

You die.

An immediate equal division sounds fair:

One-third each.

But is that how you would treat them if you were alive?

Probably not.

Maybe you've already paid for most of the 21-year-old's college.

The 16-year-old hasn't started college.

The 10-year-old still has eight years before college even begins.

You probably don't keep a spreadsheet at home making sure you've spent exactly the same number of dollars on each child every year.

You take care of them according to what they need.

A trust can be designed to continue something similar after you're gone.

What's a Pot Trust?

A “pot trust” is simply a common family fund.

Instead of immediately saying:

One-third belongs to Amy.

One-third belongs to Ben.

One-third belongs to Chris.

the money initially stays together.

If the trust gives the trustee appropriate discretion, the trustee can use that common fund for the children's different needs.

For example:

One child needs college tuition.

Another needs medical treatment.

Another needs ordinary living expenses.

The trustee may spend more on one child than another because their needs are different.

Importantly, California Probate Code §16003 does not by itself give the trustee permission to make unequal distributions. The trust needs to give the trustee that authority. Section 16003 instead requires a trustee dealing with multiple beneficiaries to act impartially while taking their differing interests into account.

In plain English:

Fair doesn't always mean spending exactly the same number of dollars on every child.

Why would parents use a pot trust?

Because it can let the trustee continue treating the children somewhat like a family.

The youngest child doesn't get shortchanged simply because Mom and Dad died before paying for the same things they had already provided to the older children.

What's the downside?

Eventually siblings can start keeping score.

“Why did she get graduate school paid for?”

“Why did he get a car?”

“Why is money that should eventually come to me being spent on my brother?”

That's why the trustee matters so much.

It's also why pot trusts generally make more sense while children are young or still dependent.

At some point, separating the children's shares usually becomes cleaner.

What Happens When the Family Pot Ends?

Now the trust can divide.

If there are two children:

50% for Child One.

50% for Child Two.

Three children:

One-third each.

Now each child's inheritance is separate.

But here's the important part:

Separate does not necessarily mean outright.

Child One's share could be handed to Child One.

Child Two's equal share could remain in trust for Child Two.

Both inherited exactly 50%.

The difference is how their shares are handled.

That's important because your children aren't identical.

Should All Our Kids Have the Same Rules?

Not necessarily.

Suppose you have two adult children.

Your daughter is financially responsible.

Your son has a serious gambling problem.

You may still want:

50% for your daughter.

50% for your son.

That's equal.

But handing both of them their inheritance the same way may make no sense.

Or maybe both kids are responsible, but one owns a business with substantial liability exposure.

Again:

Equal inheritance does not require identical protection.

The question isn't whether one child is “better.”

It's:

“What would actually help protect this child if I'm not here?”

Should We Just Pick an Age—25, 30 or 35?

You can.

A lot of trusts do.

But before you write:

“Give it all to my child at 30,”

ask:

Why 30?

If your answer is:

“Thirty sounds old enough,”

think about what you're really trying to accomplish.

An 18-year-old who seems very mature today could be irresponsible at 30.

A reckless 22-year-old could become extraordinarily responsible at 30.

Someone can develop an addiction.

Someone can recover from one.

Someone can enter a terrible relationship.

Someone can leave one.

Someone can start a risky business.

Someone can sell that business.

Life doesn't know what age you put in your trust.

And legally, those words matter.

California protects principal subject to a valid spendthrift restriction while it remains protected in trust. But after principal becomes due and payable to the beneficiary, a judgment creditor may ask a court to reach that amount. Cal. Prob. Code §15301.

The California Supreme Court explained this distinction in Carmack v. Reynolds (2017) 2 Cal.5th 844. Subject to the statutory exceptions involved, a general creditor may potentially reach the full amount of a principal distribution that has already become due and payable, even though the money is still physically in the trustee's hands.

So:

“Give Johnny everything at 30”

is not just a suggestion.

It can create a legal right to distribution.

A Real California Case Shows Why the Words Matter

Trolan v. Trolan involved a family trust with an age-based distribution provision.

After the surviving parent died, all of the children had reached the required age.

Most of the siblings wanted to continue holding their shares in trust.

One wanted her share distributed.

The California Court of Appeal held that the trust language was clear: once the conditions in the age provision had occurred, the trust had to terminate and the assets had to be distributed. The trustees could not use more general trust powers to keep the beneficiaries' shares in the trust. Trolan v. Trolan (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 939.

There was an important second part to the decision.

The Court of Appeal did not hold that all of the trust property had to be sold. The trustees still had discretion under that trust over how the required distribution would occur—in cash, in property, or another permitted manner. The appellate court therefore reversed the trial court's order requiring liquidation.

The parent lesson is simpler:

Don't put an automatic payout age in your trust unless you really want the trust protection to end when that age requirement is satisfied.

What Does Keeping the Money in Trust Actually Do?

Think of the trust as a fence around the inheritance.

A properly drafted spendthrift provision can prevent the beneficiary from voluntarily transferring the protected interest and can restrict ordinary judgment creditors from reaching protected trust income or principal before payment. Cal. Prob. Code §§15300–15301.

There can be another layer of protection when distributions remain genuinely within the trustee's discretion.

California Probate Code §15303 generally says that if the trustee has discretion over whether to make a distribution, a beneficiary's creditor cannot force the trustee to make a payment that can be made only through that discretion.

In five-year-old language:

Money inside the fence has protection.

Money handed completely to the child is now the child's money.

That doesn't mean a trust is creditor-proof.

California has statutory exceptions, including special treatment for certain child-support and spousal-support judgments. Cal. Prob. Code §15305.

So no responsible lawyer should promise:

“Nobody can ever touch this money.”

That's not how California law works.

But keeping an inheritance properly structured inside a trust can provide protections that disappear or become much weaker when the inheritance is distributed outright.

Does Keeping Money in Trust Mean We Don't Trust Our Kids?

No.

Sometimes that's the reason.

A child may simply not be ready.

But sometimes you trust your child completely.

The concern is everything else that can happen during that child's lifetime:

A lawsuit.

A business failure.

A creditor.

A destructive relationship.

Someone manipulating them.

A financial crisis nobody could have predicted when you signed your trust.

So instead of asking:

“Do I trust my child?”

sometimes the better question is:

“Do I want to give up all the protection around this inheritance just because my child is doing well today?”

Those aren't the same question.

Does the Trustee Have to Control Everything Forever?

No.

This doesn't have to be an on/off switch:

Trustee controls everything

and then suddenly:

Child owns everything.

A trust can be drafted so that a beneficiary receives more involvement as circumstances change.

For example, depending on the design:

Independent trustee controls distributions

then perhaps:

Child participates in investment or management decisions

then:

Child serves with another trustee

and potentially:

Child obtains substantially greater control.

But this needs careful drafting.

California Probate Code §16081 specifically regulates a beneficiary who is also a trustee or cotrustee and has discretionary power to distribute trust property to himself or herself. Unless the trust clearly provides otherwise in the manner permitted by the statute, that beneficiary-trustee's self-distribution authority is generally limited to health, education, support and maintenance. The statute also permits a nonbeneficiary trustee to exercise broader discretionary distribution authority in circumstances covered by the section.

And even when a trust uses words such as “absolute,” “sole,” or “uncontrolled” discretion, §16081 says the trustee remains subject to fiduciary principles, may not act in bad faith, and may not disregard the purposes of the trust.

So flexibility is possible.

But it needs to be designed, not improvised.

What If My Children Are Minors? Who Raises Them?

That's a separate job.

People sometimes confuse the guardian and the trustee.

The easiest way to think about it is:

The guardian of the person takes care of the child.

The trustee manages the property that remains in the trust.

Those jobs can be held by the same person, but they don't have to be.

Maybe your sister would be wonderful at raising your children.

Maybe your brother is much better with money.

Those can be different appointments.

And technically, parents nominate a guardian; the court ultimately makes the guardianship appointment under California law. California recognizes guardians of the person, guardians of the estate, or both, and the court applies the statutory standards when making the appointment. Cal. Prob. Code §1514.

So when you're planning for minor children, ask two different questions:

“Who would I want caring for my child?”

and:

“Who would I want managing the money?”

The answer may be the same person.

It may not.

What If My Kids Are Already Adults?

Then much of this can become simpler.

Maybe your answers are:

Our two children inherit 50/50.

Our daughter is successor trustee.

Our son is backup trustee.

Both are financially responsible.

We're comfortable giving each of them their share outright.

Done.

A good estate plan doesn't need to manufacture complexity where there isn't a problem.

But if either child gives you pause, that's when you ask why.

Not because you need a fancy trust.

Because you need to understand what you're trying to protect.

The Questions I'd Ask Parents Before Drafting This Part of the Trust

You don't need to know any legal terminology.

Just answer these like a parent.

Who handles the money?

If we both died tomorrow, who would we trust with the money for our kids?

Would that person be willing and able to tell one of our kids “no” if necessary?

Would we rather have one person making these decisions, or two?

If two, would they actually work well together?

If our first choice can't serve, who's next?

And if that person can't serve either, who's after that?

If the kids are still young

If we died while the kids were still young, would we want their money kept together for the family for a while, basically the way we'd use our money for them if we were alive?

Would we be comfortable with the trustee spending more on one child than another when their needs are different?

When should that family pot end and separate shares begin?

Or would we rather separate everyone's share immediately?

Now ask this about each child separately

If we both died today, would we be comfortable handing this child their entire inheritance today?

If the answer is yes, say yes.

If the answer is no:

What worries us?

Too young?

Not mature yet?

Bad with money?

Gambling?

Drugs or alcohol?

Someone taking advantage of them?

A bad or unstable relationship?

Business risk?

A profession where lawsuits are a concern?

Existing creditors?

Something else?

Then ask:

If that problem gets better, would we want the trustee to be able to give our child more control?

And finally:

Do we ultimately want the trust to hand everything over outright, or would we rather keep some protection around the inheritance for our child's lifetime?

You don't have to know how to draft the solution.

That's the lawyer's job.

Your job is to tell the lawyer:

what you're worried about, whom you trust, and what you would want for your child if you weren't there.

The Bottom Line

Parents usually know their children far better than their estate-planning lawyer ever will.

So don't start with:

“Should the distribution age be 25, 30 or 35?”

Start with:

“If we both died tomorrow, what would we actually want to happen to the money for each of our kids?”

Then work through four things:

Who handles the money?

Who takes over if that person can't?

If the children are still young, should their money stay together for a while?

And when—if ever—should each child get complete control of their inheritance?

The trust document comes after those answers.

Because the goal isn't to make your family fit a trust form.

The trust should fit your family.

This article discusses general California estate-planning principles. It does not address special-needs trusts, which require a separate analysis. Statutory and published California authorities discussed above were checked against current sources as of August 17, 2026. This article is general information and is not legal advice for any particular person or family.

Robert K. Lee LAW serves Canoga Park, West Hills, Woodland Hills, Winnetka, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles through in-person and virtual meetings.