Why Disinheritance Can Be the Riskiest Estate Plan

As much as we’re sold the idea of “holiday magic,” the reality is that holidays are often where long-standing family tensions come into sharp focus. Especially once you’re the one hosting, coordinating, cooking, cleaning, and trying to keep everyone emotionally regulated. When you’re tired and stretched thin, it’s not uncommon for an unsettling thought to creep in: There’s someone in this family I might need to disinherit.

Disinheritance is usually framed as a decisive solution, a way to protect assets, stop enabling bad behavior, and finally draw a boundary. But in practice, disinheritance is often one of the riskiest estate-planning decisions people make—legally and relationally.

Let’s start with what disinheritance actually means. To disinherit someone is to intentionally leave them out of your estate plan when they would otherwise reasonably expect to inherit from you. The expectation of inheritance matters. Conflict arises when a spouse, child, or other natural heir is cut out entirely. That’s when disappointment turns into suspicion, and suspicion turns into litigation.

Questions about disinheritance most often arise with adult children, especially when addiction issues are involved. Parents worry, often legitimately, that leaving money outright could do more harm than good. If you can’t trust someone with their own safety, it’s reasonable to question whether they can handle money, property, or responsibility.

But addiction is not a character flaw; it’s an illness, and often a chronic one. Treatment is expensive and relapse is possible. Cutting a child off entirely may feel firm, but it often just shifts the responsibility—financially and emotionally—onto siblings after you’re gone. It can also leave the disinherited child with nothing to lose, which increases the likelihood of a lawsuit against your estate.

This is why, in many cases, a thoughtfully designed trust is safer than outright disinheritance. A trust can provide a financial safety net without giving unrestricted access to funds. It can include guardrails and adapt to changing circumstances. And importantly, it can protect siblings from being forced into the role of gatekeeper.

Naming one child to manage another child’s inheritance is almost always a mistake. It turns a sibling into an enforcer and puts them directly in the line of fire. A professional fiduciary, someone who serves as trustee as their profession, can often preserve relationships in ways family members simply can’t. Yes, it costs money. But the alternative cost is often a fractured family.

Another tool people misunderstand is the no-contest clause. A no-contest clause says that if a beneficiary challenges the estate plan and loses, they also lose what they were left. These clauses only work if someone has something meaningful to lose. Leaving a child an inheritance in trust, paired with a no-contest clause, can deter litigation more effectively than leaving them nothing at all.

If you do decide to disinherit someone, clarity is critical. Silence invites lawsuits. Disinheritance must be explicit, consistent across all documents, and coordinated with beneficiary designations on retirement accounts and life insurance. Mental capacity and intent should be well documented. 

The bigger point is this: estate plans don’t just distribute money. They distribute responsibility. Poor planning often leaves the most conscientious child carrying the heaviest burden—cleaning up messes they didn’t create, mediating conflicts they didn’t start, and absorbing stress they never signed up for.

Doing the hard estate planning work now, with intention, is far kinder than leaving your children to sort it out later.

Listen to the full episode here: