Inheritance Act 1975 Adult Child UK (2026): Can an Adult Child Claim Against a Parent's Estate?

Yes — an adult child is an eligible applicant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 s.1(1)(c). However, the standard of reasonable provision for an adult child is significantly lower than for a surviving spouse: (1) THE MAINTENANCE STANDARD: adult children (other than those who also qualify as a cohabitant or dependent) are assessed against the MAINTENANCE STANDARD under IPFD 1975 s.1(2)(b): the court asks whether the disposition of the estate made reasonable provision for the applicant's MAINTENANCE — not reasonable provision for their financial needs generally. Maintenance means the financial provision that enables the applicant to live decently and comfortably having regard to their circumstances — it is not confined to bare subsistence, but it is lower than the 'full financial needs' standard that applies to surviving spouses; (2) ILOTT v THE BLUE CROSS [2017] UKSC 17: this landmark Supreme Court ruling is the leading modern authority on adult child claims. Key facts: Mrs Ilott was the estranged adult daughter of Mrs Jackson; Mrs Jackson left her entire estate (approximately £486,000) to charities and expressly excluded her daughter; Mrs Ilott had modest means, lived on benefits, and had five children. The Supreme Court awarded Mrs Ilott £50,000 — overturning the Court of Appeal's award of £143,000 — and in doing so confirmed: (a) the maintenance standard applies; (b) the court should take into account the adult child's actual financial needs; (c) the testator's wishes and reasons carry significant weight; (d) estrangement may reduce (but does not automatically defeat) a claim; (3) THE CLAIM IS NOT AUTOMATIC: the fact that an adult child is in financial need does not automatically entitle them to a share of the estate. The court must find that the disposition of the estate was NOT reasonable — which is a different (and harder) test. A testator who has good reasons for excluding an adult child (e.g. estrangement; the child having received generous lifetime gifts; or the child having adequate independent means) may succeed in defeating the claim even if the child is not wealthy.

The IPFD 1975 s.3 sets out the factors the court must consider in all claims: (1) THE APPLICANT'S FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND NEEDS: the court examines the adult child's current income, property, earning capacity, and outgoings. An adult child who is comfortably off with a secure income will find it very difficult to establish that the estate failed to make reasonable provision for their maintenance; (2) THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND NEEDS OF BENEFICIARIES: the court also considers the financial position of the beneficiaries who are to receive the estate. In Ilott, the fact that the beneficiaries were charities (which had no personal financial need) was relevant — though the Supreme Court confirmed that testamentary freedom to give to charity is an important public policy consideration; (3) THE OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DECEASED: did the testator have a legal or moral obligation to maintain the claimant? A parent who maintained their child throughout adult life has a stronger obligation. A child who was entirely self-sufficient for 30 years presents a weaker case; (4) THE SIZE AND NATURE OF THE ESTATE: a larger estate is more likely to produce an award — the question is always what provision can reasonably be made having regard to the estate's size; (5) ANY PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY OF THE CLAIMANT: disability significantly strengthens an adult child's claim — a disabled adult who cannot maintain themselves has much greater needs than a healthy employed adult; (6) THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES: the court can take into account the adult child's conduct toward the testator. An adult child who was abusive, who abandoned the relationship, or who significantly contributed to the estrangement may face a reduced or nil award. Similarly, the testator's own conduct toward the child is relevant; (7) OTHER MATTERS THE COURT CONSIDERS RELEVANT: this catch-all includes the testator's reasons for making (or not making) the provision they did. An adult child should be aware that a testator who leaves a letter of wishes explaining why they did not provide for that child has strengthened the estate's position considerably.

Estrangement is one of the most significant factors in adult child Inheritance Act claims: (1) THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: estrangement does NOT automatically defeat a claim. In Ilott v The Blue Cross, Mrs Ilott and her mother had been estranged for 26 years — yet the Supreme Court still awarded £50,000. The mere fact that a parent and adult child did not get on does not remove the court's jurisdiction to make an order; (2) THE RELEVANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY: estrangement may affect the court's assessment of the deceased's obligations and responsibilities to the child. Where the estrangement was caused primarily by the child (e.g. the child cut off contact without justification), the deceased's obligation is weakened. Where the estrangement was caused primarily by the deceased's own conduct (e.g. domestic abuse; abandonment; refusing contact), the deceased's obligation remains — and the estrangement may be set aside as a relevant factor; (3) THE IMPORTANCE OF REASONS: a testator who is estranged from an adult child and wishes to exclude them from the will should: (a) write a letter of wishes explaining the reasons for the exclusion in objective, factual terms; (b) avoid vindictive or untrue characterisations of the child; (c) obtain a capacity assessment and a golden rule statement from a solicitor (particularly for older testators); (4) THE WEIGHT OF TESTAMENTARY FREEDOM: the Supreme Court in Ilott confirmed that England's law of testamentary freedom is a valuable principle — the testator's express wishes and the purpose to which they wanted their estate put carry real weight. This is distinct from many civil law countries that have forced heirship rules; (5) TIME LIMIT: an adult child must bring their claim within SIX MONTHS of the grant of representation (IPFD 1975 s.4). Permission may be granted for late claims but is not automatic.

Awards in adult child cases tend to be modest compared to the estate — reflecting the maintenance standard: (1) THE RANGE OF AWARDS: courts typically award adult children amounts sufficient to: (a) fund immediate financial needs (e.g. repair a home; clear a debt); (b) provide a capital sum that generates a modest income to supplement the applicant's income; (c) fund the adaptation of a home for disability needs; The awards in adult child cases are generally lower than those in surviving spouse or cohabitant cases — which are assessed against the higher 'full financial needs' standard; (2) ILOTT v THE BLUE CROSS — THE BENCHMARK: the Supreme Court's £50,000 award was described as the minimum required to make reasonable financial provision for Mrs Ilott having regard to her actual financial needs (primarily, her housing costs and benefits position). The Supreme Court criticised the Court of Appeal for making a higher award that effectively provided for Mrs Ilott's financial needs in full rather than for her maintenance; (3) THE INTERACTION WITH STATE BENEFITS: where the adult child receives means-tested state benefits, a capital award from the estate may reduce their benefits entitlement. Courts can structure awards (e.g. via a discretionary trust rather than an outright payment) to mitigate this interaction — though this requires specialist structuring; (4) PERIODICAL PAYMENT ORDERS vs LUMP SUMS: the court can order periodical payments (ongoing income) or a lump sum. Lump sums are more common in practice. The court can also allow the adult child to purchase a life interest in a property (enabling them to live in a home from the estate without owning it outright); (5) COSTS: the general rule in Inheritance Act litigation is that each party bears their own costs (unlike general civil litigation where costs follow the event). In practice, many claims settle out of court — mediation is commonly used.

There is no absolute protection against an Inheritance Act claim — but several steps can significantly reduce the risk and strengthen the estate's position: (1) WRITE A CLEAR, REASONED LETTER OF WISHES: a letter of wishes addressed to the executors explaining WHY the testator has made their dispositions (particularly why an adult child has been excluded or received less than expected) is the single most important protective step. The letter should: (a) state the facts objectively without vindictive language; (b) record the testator's reasons (e.g. that the child received substantial lifetime gifts; that the child has substantial income of their own; that the testator has no obligation due to the child's conduct); (c) be witnessed and dated; (d) be kept with the will; (2) OBTAIN A CAPACITY ASSESSMENT AND GOLDEN RULE CERTIFICATE: instructing a solicitor to prepare the will and obtain a brief medical assessment (the 'golden rule' for testators with age-related conditions) confirms that the testator had full testamentary capacity and their instructions were freely given; (3) MAKE LIFETIME GIFTS: assets given away during the testator's lifetime (as genuine gifts made more than 7 years before death) do not form part of the estate that is subject to the Inheritance Act. However, the IPFD 1975 s.10 (anti-avoidance) can bring back gifts made within 6 years of death that were intended to defeat potential claims; (4) CONSIDER A TESTAMENTARY TRUST: rather than an outright exclusion, the testator could include a protective discretionary trust with a letter of wishes identifying who should benefit. This gives the trustees flexibility to respond to claims without the estate being challenged through litigation; (5) PROVIDE SOME PROVISION: even a small bequest (e.g. specific personal property) may be better than a complete exclusion — reducing the practical incentive to litigate while making clear the testator's deliberate decision.