If you disagreed, how did you resolve who should be guardian?

[Captain FIRE]

If you and your spouse differed on who should be guardian if you both die, how did you resolve that issue?

We've put off making our wills because we haven't settled on an answer, and I'm a few months away from delivering our second kid.  We both agree the best options are a sibling of his or a sibling of mine, but which and how to resolve?  (We agree the other siblings and parents are off the table.)

Things we've considered, with a * indicating the primary reason that one parent is opposed:
Sibling A:
Pros: Has kids close in age to ours.  Is more similar in perspectives on finances, religion, politics.
Cons: *Live across the county so would substantially uproot our kids to move away from friends and family.*  The kids are pretty wild/undisciplined (the older one is corrupting the younger) and would make for wild chaos adding 2 more in the mix even before considering that ours are likely to learn that behavior too.  We briefly see maybe once a year, so our kid doesn't know them/couldn't pick them out from a crowd.

Sibling B:
Pro: Lives nearby, within 1 hr of us, one set of parents, and 1/2 the time another parent (the other 1/2 the time that parent is visiting the above grandkids), with other relatives including the third set of parents, within a few hours.  Our kid sees fairly often, knows well and is comfortable with them.  Adores his older cousin (age 14).
Con: Would still entail a move away from school and easy visiting of friends.  *Is pretty religious and while there's no proselytizing to us, there is concern about whether our kids would be raised within this church and brainwashed rather than allowed to make their own choices.* 
Note: Would have loved more kids, so the late addition to the family as their kid is launching would not be an issue.  My husband and I are of different religious backgrounds but neither practices now/particularly cares beyond exposing them to both religions.  The sibling religion is a third religion.

Things we've considered to resolve the major issues:
- Sibling A: Setting up a fund the kids could liberally use to visit family/have family visit them.  However, this isn't the same as living nearby, and it'd be a lot effort to make work (e.g. someone would need to fly with them at young ages, it'd be costly for whole families to fly to visit them).
- Sibling B: Writing a letter requesting that the kids be allowed to make their own religious choices/not go to that church.  But, this would be tough/unlikely to execute at a young age even if they agreed (e.g. get a weekly babysitter when they attend services?), and is not binding.

We have enough socked away that finances shouldn't be an issue for anyone raising them (and we'd have a different person in charge of kid finances), but if it matters, Sibling A is better off than Sibling B.

Alternatively, I bet we could agree to give them to very good friends of ours, but that's guaranteed to offend everyone in our families (and the friends would need to agree).

[Hula Hoop]

I would go with the religious parents even though you may not agree with their beliefs.  It sounds like your child is closer to these relatives including his/her cousin so that is a huge positive.  I know a lot of people, including my husband, who were brought up religious but who have moved away from religion and formed their own beliefs in adulthood.

[MayDay]

I'd go with B, no question. And I'm not religious at all (if anything opposed the religion).

[DadJokes]

Add another vote for B from a non-religious person.

In general, I'd suggest the option that involves the smallest amount of change in the children's lives. As far as offending people, I really don't care what others think; all that matters is what is best for the kids.

Have you actually discussed this with both siblings and the friends? Sibling A or B may even say that the other would be a better option.

[Cranky]

Who do you think will cherish and prioritize your kids the most?

Because the hard fact is that when you are dead, you won't get to decide how your kids are raised. You have to trust the person(s) who will care for them to make the best decisions that they can, even if they are not the decisions you might make.

[wellactually]

We’re in the beginning of this talk right now and similar to you, we have more than one good option. So that’s something to be thankful for from the start.

Options for resolution or at least to move on from current stalemate:

Have the person with the protest argue *for* the family they have the protest with. This might make you each see it a little differently and change some the level of protest at least. And I’m talking full on making the case that family should be selected.

Set aside the specific protest with each family and talk about which family would be the best fit if the protest item didn’t exist. It might help you further see what you each think about the whole picture if you’ve been coming back to the same points of issue each time.

Finally, narrow the decision. Who would be best if your kids needed to be placed in the next 5 years. Taking care of many young kids with little family support would be a huge burden. Taking care of two littles when you have one teen and tons of family close is different. Maybe you just make a decision for the next few years and then set a date to review that decision as the kids are reaching school age.

Note: it would probably be helpful to think a bit more about what “very religious” means. Being a diehard united Methodist who goes to church every weekend and takes kids to midweek AWANA is quite different from a fundamentalist baptist who wouldn’t let your daughters play sports or pursue education. Maybe whoever is siblings with that person could have a lunch with them some time and ask a bit more about what their religious body looks like - Does everyone in their faith community believe exactly the same thing or do they have room to disagree? How does it effect their political and global worldview and is that diametrically opposes to your own?

[Blue Skies]

Have you talked to the siblings about this?  The person you choose has the right to refuse.  That is not a situation you want to be in.

I agree that choosing the best fit for *right now* and revisiting the situation as your children get older is a great way to do it.  That is what we did, and are about at the point where we may be changing our minds to select someone else (originally selected parents, but they are getting older now).

[MissNancyPryor]

Totally B. 

[cchrissyy]

to me it boils down to
A - your kids would be completely uprooted to live with people they can't even recognize
B - the very opposite

[bogart]

Besides the points others make, my understanding is that when you list a guardian or potential guardians, you are naming people you want the Court to consider if you have died and your children need to be placed with someone able/willing to care for them.  If you're working with a lawyer (or plan to), presumably they can advise on this (I have no legal training...).  Assuming it's correct, maybe you just want to list both the options and say that you'd like each considered, and for the Court to consult with them (the prospective guardians) in determining what is best for the kids?

Over time, people's circumstances change, so even if you did agree now, it's not clear that the people you agree on will necessarily be the right ones in 5 years, or 10. 

[appleseed]

Besides the points others make, my understanding is that when you list a guardian or potential guardians, you are naming people you want the Court to consider if you have died and your children need to be placed with someone able/willing to care for them.  If you're working with a lawyer (or plan to), presumably they can advise on this (I have no legal training...).  Assuming it's correct, maybe you just want to list both the options and say that you'd like each considered, and for the Court to consult with them (the prospective guardians) in determining what is best for the kids?

Over time, people's circumstances change, so even if you did agree now, it's not clear that the people you agree on will necessarily be the right ones in 5 years, or 10.

This is what our lawyer warned us about in doing our wills. We were advised to select a group of people we trusted to together decide the best place for our children. Circumstances change and the people you may have chosen will have moved, died, divorced, or otherwise be unable to care for your children.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[Cassie]

Sibling B if they agree and I am not religious.

[Captain FIRE]

Thanks all.

Both sets are "good people" and would care about the kids, so I'm not worried on that account.  Of course, neither is perfect, and both also have flaws.

I am in favor of Sibling B too, but persuading DH is another matter.  Perhaps thinking about this in terms of the next 5 years would help break the deadlock.  It's clear Sibling A is having behavioral challenges with the kids (really the older, but it's now bleeding over to the younger), and adding in a 0 & 3 year old to the mix (2/5) would likely make matters worse, as I imagine anyone would struggle with 4 under 6.  Perhaps when they are all older, and they have more of a relationship with our kids, it would be different and we could plan to reassess then.  (One of DH's argument is that they may not have a relationship now but they could/would in the future.)

Yes, I understand the selection in a will can be overridden by a judge, which is one reason why going with a friend would be dicey as that would be much more likely to be overridden.

To answer the "very religious" - we attended a service with them that I agree was pretty weird and more evangelical/proselyting than we were comfortable with.  Otherwise, I don't think their actual activities are particularly problematic - heavily involved mentoring the youth group, weekly church, actually tithe the 10% etc., but DH worries about the brainwashing aspect.

[jeninco]

An opinion from a random internet-person: we assessed all the people we were related to, and went with my best friend from college and her husband (with their permission of course). Because they typically live a long way away, we also (with permission) specified some amount of time with our across-the-street neighbors, who our kids have known and loved their entire lives, but who are a bit older.

Because, seriously, having someone who would raise our kids in accordance with our values was pretty important to us. And every family member we have was, for some (big) reason, inappropriate.

We started making a point to see their guardians at least once every year or two, so they wouldn't be complete strangers. And, when they asked, we explained what would happen.

IMHO, the "actively religious" thing is highly problematic, especially with an evangelical church. Especially especially if one of your kids is female.