Need impartial opinions re: guardians in case of death

[meganeilis]

I am in my mid-20s. DS is in his early 30s. We own our home. I am a SAHM. We live in a rural area, DH will teach DS to fish, hunt, camp, etc. I am an atheist. DH is agnostic. We do not attend a church.

Here are our three options. Given this info. which would you choose? I think DH is having a hard time stepping back from this situation and viewing it objectively.

Option #1- Aunt A & Uncle A
Mid-20s. Aunt is product of a divorced family.Own their own home in a suburban area, several hours away from our home. Both work full time. No children, plan to have two if possible. Have only been married a year. Would not provide a rural upbringing, but would lavish DS with attention. DS would most likely be spoiled. Do not attend church except for hollidays.

Option #2- Grandpa B & Stepgrandma B
Late 40's. Both have been divorced, this is their second marriage.Own their own home in suburban area, several hours away from home. Grandpa works full time from home, Stepgrandma works part time. Have one teenage son still at home. DS would travel and have more money than we could provide. Would not experience a rural upbringing, but would lavish DS with attention. Do not attend church except for hollidays.

Option #3- Uncle C & Aunt C
Early 30s. Live in a rented home with 3 children, in our area. Would like more kids. Uncle works full time PLUS (60 hrs. a week), Aunt is a SAHM who is homeschooling. Aunt has a history of mental illness, has been hospitalized repeatedly. Would provide traditional,rural upbringing, but would not be able to give DS as much attention as other options. Aunt and Uncle are fundamentalist Christians, attend church and have strong religious beliefs.

[anyuka]

I voted for option A. Your options are way better than any of mine would be!

[PiePie]

need more info

ages of grandparents might be relevant if they are getting on in years and DS is still quite young.

[MomInCalifornia]

I messed up and voted wrong...subtract one vote from C on your poll!!!!!

I would choose A, I would so NOT choose C as they just don't seem to be alot like you.

[Teensy]

I would rule out C.

Between A & B - which ones will DS likely get to know best growing up? If A has children, will the cousins play together and feel close, despite living far apart? Or will DS spend time with Grandpa B and feel closer to him?

Money should be irrelevant - you and DH should both have life insurance policies that would provide for DC in the case of your deaths.

Remember, you can change your guardians as time passes and things change. Also, you can name separate people to be the guardian (who raises DC) and the trustee (who handles financial decisons for DC until they are old enough). Your estate planner will likely set up a trust for DC's money if both parents die. A common method is DC gets 1/3 of inheritance at age 25, another 1/3 at 30, and the remainder at 35.

****

My intuition tells me you think couple A would be best - so that's who would get my vote.

[NaomiLorelie]

I think that you should choose between A and B. Whichever your intuition indicates.

C sounds like a risky proposition for several reasons.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by meganeilis

I am in my mid-20s. DS is in his early 30s. We own our home. I am a SAHM. We live in a rural area, DH will teach DS to fish, hunt, camp, etc. I am an atheist. DH is agnostic. We do not attend a church.

Here are our three options. Given this info. which would you choose? I think DH is having a hard time stepping back from this situation and viewing it objectively.

Option #1- Aunt A & Uncle A
Mid-20s. Aunt is product of a divorced family.Own their own home in a suburban area, several hours away from our home. Both work full time. No children, plan to have two if possible. Have only been married a year. Would not provide a rural upbringing, but would lavish DS with attention. DS would most likely be spoiled. Do not attend church except for hollidays.

My opinion: Too materialistic for your family, with NOT enough available time to spend with your son doing hands-on parenting, and zero experience dealing with a child. IMHO, from the data you've given, these folks are too focused on their career and acquiring possessions and their relationship at this time is not sufficiently grounded in experience to deal with the "insta-family" of a death and guardianship, especially since later on, they might think about having one of their own, in which case your child might end up being a fifth wheel.

Option #2- Grandpa B & Stepgrandma B
Late 40's. Both have been divorced, this is their second marriage.Own their own home in suburban area, several hours away from home. Grandpa works full time from home, Stepgrandma works part time. Have one teenage son still at home. DS would travel and have more money than we could provide. Would not experience a rural upbringing, but would lavish DS with attention. Do not attend church except for hollidays.

I'm concerned about the teenage son, given abuse statistics. No offense to those with teenagers here -- just going with stats as a general guideline. Overall, though, I like them better than the Option A pair. Being older and having already been parents, they're more knowledgeable about children and the teenage son will be on his own in a few years, so basically, they'd be able to give nearly 100% of their attention to your child. Not a bad deal. If the teenage son is a good dude, he could be a friend and mentor to your son and potentially a helpful mediator between your son and his potential guardians, someone to whom it would be "safe" to discuss topics like masturbation, sexuality in general, or other topics boys are uncomfortable discussing with almost anyone except other boys.

Option #3- Uncle C & Aunt C
Early 30s. Live in a rented home with 3 children, in our area. Would like more kids. Uncle works full time PLUS (60 hrs. a week), Aunt is a SAHM who is homeschooling. Aunt has a history of mental illness, has been hospitalized repeatedly. Would provide traditional,rural upbringing, but would not be able to give DS as much attention as other options. Aunt and Uncle are fundamentalist Christians, attend church and have strong religious beliefs.

No. No flames please, but they already have a full quota of kids and intend on having more, which I assume means at least one. That in itself wouldn't be enough to bug me too much, but the fact that the uncle's working himself down to the bone every week to support his family (and would have to work even harder to support two more children, his and yours) worries me in terms of his long-term health, both mental and physical. The mental illness issue with the aunt isn't necessarily a bad deal in and of itself -- I personally know several people whose bipolar or depression issues are successfully medicated and monitored -- but the severity and the fact she's been hospitalized -- and "repeatedly" -- is a problem. Sorry, but I'm thinking an Andrea Yates situation here. I love the fact that she's a homeschooling, rural, SAHM, which sounds like that is very much in line with your values, but the instability in the mom's health and the dad working himself to death really concerns me more and outweighs the positives. Since you are an atheist and your husband is an agnostic, the fundamentalist Christian aspect troubles me greatly.

My vote: Couple #2.

[meganeilis]

Aunt A is my sister. She adores DS and would be my first choice. She currently works full time, but I think she'll SAH when they have kids of their own in a couple of years. I really feel that she and her husband will be fantastic, doting parents.

Grandpa B is my father. He is married to my stepmother, who I love to death. My 11 yr. old half brother lives with them, and he's a fantastic kid. I would not worry about him in anyway. He loves his nephew and would be a great influence.

Uncle C is my BIL, he is married to Aunt C. It is very much an Andrea Yates situation. BIL is probably the most like my DH, but the fact that they are religious zealots and the fact that SIL is mentally ill negates anything good about their household.

My DH feels strongly about the importance of marriage vows (their are several divorces in my family), he wants DS to stay in the area that we live in, and he wants DS to have a traditional, rural upbringing. This means he is leaning towards his family, but BIL & SIL are not reasonable choices. I wanted to see what others would choose if the options were laid out in black and white.

[AladdinsLamp]

While your dh is idealizing the whole rural upbringing thing.

In our family - dh and me - we like to travel abroad. We want our ds to travel a lot just as we have.

But for everyday care of our ds, we chose the person (NOT PEOPLE) who would provide the best care for him.

As the other poster said, money should NOT factor in to this because you should have life insurance that will provide $ for your child.

We ended up chosing dh's sister who lives in another part of the country and who has not traveled abroad much because she will raise our ds the way we want him to be raised - with a lot of love and attention.

We bypassed relatives who travel a lot more because they would not provide the kind of environment we want ds to have, or they are getting up there in age and we don't want ds to be a caretaker of THEM.

Be sure you have back up guardians, and be sure that you designate only ONE person as the guardian, just because in the case of a divorce or a person dies, you don't want your kid/s getting fought over in court.

We have only dh's sister designated as a guardian, not her dh, and no one has a problem with it. No one expects them to divorce anytime soon, but it is safer for ds this way.

Good luck, hard choices.

I go for A personally. Your ds can visit his uncle and his grandfather, and I hope your sister would make that a priority.

Allie

[Tigerchild]

Have you given any thought to asking both A and B to consider being guardians, with the explanation that you want to have two options, as changes sometimes happen before you are able to change your will?

We have chosen to ask multiple people if they would consider being guardians to our children, with the understanding that there were other options, that we have a hierarchy but it is flexible (so that nobody choosed to do so because they think they're the only option).

A might find that their priorities and time and worries might change, should they have special circumstances happen (such as surprise multiples or a special needs child of their own, ect.). B might become frail as they get older.

You don't need to say you only have one possible guardian. It sounds like you have two great candidates, whose strengths are different (and who ideally if you're all related might be willing to help each other as well), I think it'd be a shame to force yourself to choose one and one only right now.

[chel]

well done Meg Murry. I agree with her.
I think your husband doesn't see the big picture. One of the last things I think of is rural verses surburban in raising a child. Yeah, idealizing it. A dc can have a great life in many different environments and I think being exposed to several is something positive.
The person raising the child can make all the difference.

You still have better choices then I do. I have parent's in their 70's and all my siblings are not married nor have children (the "my child would never do that syndrome", and just my luck they will never have children so in the back of their minds they would always think that)

[earthmama369]

I would choose option A, with provisions for a change to option B in the event of A getting divorced. (Assuming all parties willing to be named guardian.) They both seem to be good options, with A slightly preferable because of age.

ETA: I commented before reading the thread. Having read the more detailed who's who, I would definitely go with A, B for backup. Not C -- location means little if you aren't in a stable, loving situation.

[Ann-Marita]

Definitely not C. Mental illness and religious fundamentalism are a dangerous combination. And the fact that they are out in the country would turn me off even more - no close neighbors to keep an eye on things. Yikes!

Right now, I would lead toward B (the grandparents), but primarily because of their age (just middleaged - not old), Aunt & Uncle A's age and marital status (rather young, and newlyweds).

However, as they mature, and their marriage seems solid, then I would probably lean toward Aunt and Uncle A, especially as the grandparents age and/or have health issues.

I did not read the other responses. I wanted to give the OP my opinion based on just her post.

[Sharlla]

I chose B. Older couple will probably be more stable than a young newlywed couple. C would NEVER be an option, renters, unstable mental history and fundies, no thanks.

[PrettyBird]

I chose A. Although B sounds great too, I knew several kids in high school that were raised by their grandparents and it was not always the best situation as the grandparents aged. However, your parents are very young still so this may not be an issue. Definitely not C.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by meganeilis

Uncle C is my BIL, he is married to Aunt C. It is very much an Andrea Yates situation. BIL is probably the most like my DH, but the fact that they are religious zealots and the fact that SIL is mentally ill negates anything good about their household.

My DH feels strongly about the importance of marriage vows (their are several divorces in my family), he wants DS to stay in the area that we live in, and he wants DS to have a traditional, rural upbringing. This means he is leaning towards his family, but BIL & SIL are not reasonable choices. I wanted to see what others would choose if the options were laid out in black and white.

YIKES. Sorry, but with all due respect to your husband and his attachment to his brother and SIL, this is a bad situation, period, without adding your bereaved child to the mix. The fact that they're rural (and therefore, I assume, somewhat isolated) only increases the problem, IMHO.

[meganeilis]

Originally Posted by Meg Murry.

YIKES. Sorry, but with all due respect to your husband and his attachment to his brother and SIL, this is a bad situation, period, without adding your bereaved child to the mix. The fact that they're rural (and therefore, I assume, somewhat isolated) only increases the problem, IMHO.

ITA. I worry for their children as it is. There is no way I would designate them.

DH is having a hard time though because there aren't any good options on his side of the family. Besides BIL & SIL, he has a brother who is single and basically a hermit, and his parents. His parents are not an option as they are in their 60s and not in very good health.

He has actually suggested our best friends (very similar to us, late 20s, live in our area, have a little boy 7 mths. older than DS, both work), but I don't think that staying in this area is more important than living with family.

[fek&fuzz]

You might want to consider just appointing one of the people in the couple as the guardian, with the other listed as the alternate. This is to avoid a custody battle if the 2 of them divorce. It just makes it cleaner.

[grahamsmom98]

He has actually suggested our best friends (very similar to us, late 20s, live in our area, have a little boy 7 mths. older than DS, both work), but I don't think that staying in this area is more important than living with family.

YES!


We, too, live in a rural setting. We homeschool. I am a sahm. Dh is heavily involved with ds's education. I am an atheist, dh is Catholic (but, not rabid!). We do not vax. Ds comes first for us and figures into all our decisions.

Originally, we had designated my older brother & sil as ds's guardians. But, this was when ds was just a baby and we figured ds would deal with the changes better.

They both work full-time and are gone a lot. They live in a huge city in a small home without much of a yard. Both their children are grown and married with their own children. Ds would have been in a daycare/nanny situation immediately and would go to private school. He would have the opportunity for lots of world travel. They are strong Catholics and think science cures everything (would vax ds in a second!). They are die-hard Republicans, we are most certainly not...

Ds has met my brother just once that he can remember (for a total of 3 hours) and has no memory of my sil (he met her when he was 6 months old!).

The more we though about it, the more we didn't like it.

In the meantime, my best friend from college years and I reunited after a 20-year separation. We clicked like nothing had happened. She is married to a wonderful man, has a ds just 6 months younger then our son, a sweet older daughter (5 years older than ds) and she homeschooled her oldest for a couple of years. Her son is in public school because he really wanted it and is thriving. They back-up the children's ps education with plenty of additional knowledge at home. They are not overly-religious and respect my non-beliefs. They know about ds's vaccine reaction and non-vax status. They live in a rural setting, as well. Our ds might end up going to public school, but I know that my friend would do whatever is right for our ds, if that means homeschooling, she'll do it (since there will be financial compensation for being his guardian). They have offered their home to my Mom, as well, so ds would have his closest relative with him!

Ds knows them and loves them. They have visited us and he is comfortable with them.

The only downside of this is they live back east in NJ and we live in WA state. But, she wants to move out west (she is from MT originally) and I think they will. We have a very big estate to leave to ds and a trust will take care of all the financial concerns for him until he is grown. We think ds would do better, should we die, to be with people he knows immediately.

So, maybe you should consider your friends. If your ds knows them and they have a child near your ds's age, that would be a big plus.

Guardians do NOT have to be relatives!! DO be sure and make this a legal decision and have a good lawyer draw-up the papers! Especially should you choose the friends (in case the relatives would contest it!).

[Evan&Anna's_Mom]

Originally Posted by meganeilis

He has actually suggested our best friends (very similar to us, late 20s, live in our area, have a little boy 7 mths. older than DS, both work), but I don't think that staying in this area is more important than living with family.

This might actually be a better choice than any of the relatives. How does their parenting style match yours? That's the one piece of info that seems to be glaringly missing from all of your options. Frankly, I would say that parenting style and religion being a match is more important than location OR blood ties.

The other things that I think you should look at is who do your kids feel most comfortable with and/or know the best? Remember that you are talking about moving children that are grieving and in shock. For me, one of the important deals was that they stay close to their friends and schools in such a situation, so proximity was important, though not the rural/suburban split. But most important is who would raise your children with the values that you want. The other consideration might be who would support continued contact with the "other" side of the family? For DH and I, we don't really trust my parents to allow a connection to DH's side fo family, so that was a big reason they weren't suitable candidates.