We were most of the way through a design meeting — the one where the plan stops being a conversation and starts being a draft — when the client mentioned, almost in passing, that there was another child.
Not included. Not going to be. They could give me the details, they said, but they didn’t offer them, and they were already moving to the next item on the list.
It wasn’t a test and it wasn’t a confession. It was an afterthought. A decision they’d made a long time ago and hadn’t looked at since, mentioned the way you’d mention a car you no longer own.
I didn’t push back. I noted it and kept going. And then something happened that I’ve now watched happen enough times to trust it.
The drafting held up the mirror
We got to the remote contingent beneficiaries — what happens if everyone named ahead of them is gone. We got to backup executors and trustees. We got to the grandchildren.
And at each of those points, without any prompting from me, they hesitated. Well — I suppose they should be in there for that. Their child’s children, it turned out, were a different question from their child. By the time the draft was done, the excluded child was still excluded, but the grandchildren were provided for, and the plan said so in a way the family would be able to read.
Nothing about that was my doing. I hadn’t held up a mirror. The document did. A decision that had been sitting frozen for years got walked, clause by clause, through its actual consequences — who gets this if that, who steps in if the other can’t — and the client discovered, in real time, that they’d never thought it all the way through. It had been made once, in a different decade, and never revisited.
I’ve seen the same thing with a different temperature. A client, hot and certain: my daughter is getting nothing. The reason, when it came, was her husband — the client didn’t like him, didn’t like his line of work, didn’t want a dollar of the family’s money passing through his hands. Fair enough; that’s a sore subject in a lot of families. I didn’t argue. But as the drafting went on and the decision started to take its final shape, the certainty softened. Do I really want to do this? Not because anyone talked them out of it. Because the process showed them how it would actually play out, and the picture didn’t match the feeling.
The turn
We tend to treat a disinheritance as a decision that’s already been made. The client has weighed it, chosen, and is instructing us; our job is to execute.
But a great many disinheritances aren’t decisions. They’re cutoffs — and that’s a different thing entirely.
Murray Bowen used the term emotional cutoff for the way people manage unbearable relational tension: not by resolving it, but by severing contact and calling it settled. The estrangement feels like an ending. It’s actually a freeze. The tension doesn’t go anywhere — it just stops moving, held in place by distance and silence.
And the will is where a cutoff gets encoded. The person left out of the document isn’t only left out of the money. They’re written into the family’s story a particular way, permanently, by someone who won’t be there to explain it — and the next generation inherits the whole frozen conflict along with the assets, with no idea what actually happened.
Considered choice, or avoidance?
Not every disinheritance is a cutoff, and this is the discernment the work requires. Some are genuinely considered — a clear-eyed decision, made at peace, that this person should not inherit, for reasons the client can state calmly. That deserves respect, and careful drafting to make it hold.
But a cutoff sounds different. It comes out sideways — as an afterthought, or as heat. It’s decades old and has never been reexamined. The client can tell you that they did it but goes vague on why, or the why is a single figure — a son-in-law, an incident, a lifestyle choice — clearly standing in for something larger. And when the draft walks them through the consequences, the certainty doesn’t hold. That last one is the tell I’ve come to rely on most. A real decision survives contact with its own details. A cutoff usually doesn’t.
Brad Klontz’s research on money scripts names a fourth pattern, vigilance — money as a secret to be guarded — and the families that produce cutoffs are often the same families where money was never discussed at all. The silence around the child and the silence around the balance sheet tend to come from the same place. Which is why the disclosure so often arrives the way it does: sideways, late, and a little embarrassed.
Cutoff feels like resolution. It’s usually just the tension frozen — and the will is where it gets handed to people who never chose it.
The one that didn’t get resolved
Not every one of these gets walked back, and I want to be honest about that.
One couple was immovable. The break with their child was over religious observance and lifestyle — the kind of rupture that, in some communities, feels less like a family disagreement than a verdict. They were determined. The child was out, and no amount of drafting was going to soften it.
Then the child died. Young, suddenly, before either parent.
There were no practical consequences. Nothing to leave, no one to contest, the plan didn’t need to change. And yet the parents were devastated in a way that went beyond grief — as though they’d insulted the dead, as though there was a whole account of unfinished business that could now never be settled. We wish we had resolved this before. The plan they’d insisted on had cost them nothing legally and something they couldn’t name.
I think about that one when a client is certain. The document can carry the exclusion just fine. It’s the client who has to carry it afterward, and they don’t always know that yet.
The silence that runs the other way
There’s a mirror image of the cutoff, and it’s become more common than it used to be: the child the will doesn’t know about.
A family I worked with found theirs through a home DNA kit. Someone uploaded their results for fun and got back a match too close to be a cousin — a woman who’d been adopted as an infant and had been quietly looking for her biological parents for years. The father had been single for a stretch between two marriages. A brief relationship, a pregnancy he never knew about, a baby placed for adoption by a mother who’d since passed away. He had children from both marriages. He’d had no idea there was a third set of one.
The uncanny part was how well she fit. Same community, similar upbringing, the kind of person who could have walked into a family dinner as a guest and no one would have blinked. Everyone tried to be open. Everyone was, in fact, open — right up to the moment somebody did the arithmetic and realized that openness and a legal claim on the estate are two different things. In New York, a child born outside a marriage has the same rights as any other child once paternity is established, and DNA has made that establishment far easier than it used to be. The warmth was real. So was the awkwardness. So, potentially, was the contest.
That family had done nothing wrong. Nobody had cut anyone off. But the plan was silent on a person it didn’t know existed, and silence reads the same way to a court whether it was chosen or not.
In practice
So is it your job to open this? Reasonable practitioners land in different places, and I won’t pretend there’s one answer. But I’ve come to believe that noticing is always our job, even when opening isn’t.
What I’ve stopped doing is confronting it in the moment. Pushing back when a client is hot or embarrassed tends to entrench the decision, because now it’s a position to defend. What works better, in my experience, is letting the drafting do the work: taking the exclusion seriously, and then walking it — remote contingents, backup fiduciaries, the grandchildren, the what-ifs — until the client sees the whole picture rather than the one feeling that produced it. A few plain questions along the way — has anything changed?, is this how you want it to read to your family later?, would you want them to know why? — respect the client’s authority while making sure the decision is actually a decision.
Sometimes that changes nothing, and the disinheritance stands. Then the drafting has to make it hold: name the child so the omission can’t be argued as an oversight, say plainly that the exclusion is intentional, decide separately and explicitly about that child’s own children, and consider a no-contest provision where the family history warrants it. And put the reasoning somewhere it can be read — not in the will, which is a public document and a blunt instrument, but in a letter the executor holds. The exclusions that get contested are the ones that arrive as a surprise with no explanation attached. A judge reading silence assumes something was hidden. A family reading silence assumes the worst.
And sometimes the conversation is the first time in thirty years anyone has invited the client to look at it directly, and something shifts. Not always toward reconciliation. Sometimes just toward a provision for the grandchildren, or a letter, or a decision the client can finally explain. That’s enough. That’s usually the whole difference between a plan that holds and one that detonates.
The document can carry the silence. It can’t carry the explanation. Only the person can do that — and only while they’re still here.
Over to You
When a client discloses a cutoff the plan will have to encode, do you open it — or take the instruction and draft? Where’s your line?
And when you have opened it: did surfacing the why make the plan stronger, or was there a cost to going there?
Hidden Basis comes out every other Friday. To receive it in your inbox, subscribe below or at rappslaw.com/hidden-basis.
Sources and further reading: Murray Bowen on emotional cutoff (Family Therapy in Clinical Practice); Brad Klontz et al. on money scripts and financial vigilance (Journal of Financial Therapy); Roberta Gilbert, Extraordinary Relationships, for the plain-language Bowen. Client details are altered.