<p>Refering to legitimate children in wills is easier than naming specific children (and then having to redraw a will if more are born), or saying “children born or adopted by my son and his wife during their marriage”. </p>
<p>The word ‘illegitimate’ is used in cases all the time. It’s not derogatory, like the b word. It’s just a legal distinction.</p>
<p>“My viewpoints are somewhat traditional and I consider a kid born out wedlock illegitimate.”</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>What makes a child born to parents who are not married not legitimate?</p>
<p>Someone writing a will may want to be more specific, since it appears that the definition of “legitimate” vs. “illegitimate” children may vary somewhat. For example, if a child is born out-of-wedlock, but the parents subsequently marry, is the child “legitimate” or “illegitimate” afterward?</p>
<p>“Legitimacy” does matter in terms of US nationality law: <a href=“http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-600instr.pdf[/url]”>http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-600instr.pdf</a></p>
<p>More: <a href=“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(law)[/url]”>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(law)</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So combining what you’re saying with what calmom is saying, I take it the law can no longer distinguish between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children, e.g., for purposes of determining who inherits under the laws of intestacy–but individuals can and sometimes do still discriminate on that basis in their wills, which are considered a private matter?</p>
<p>But why would anyone choose to do that in this day and age? Now that you mention it, I recall that the lawyer who drafted our wills asked if we wanted intergenerational transfers to be limited to “legitimate” children. I said no. Why would we? If I had a male child and he fathered a child out of wedlock, why would I want to disown that child in my will? If one of my daughters had a child out of wedlock–whether she was cohabiting with a man she wasn’t married to, or it came about in a more casual relationship and she carried the child to term, or she used reproductive technology to get pregnant and have a child as a single mom or as part of a same-sex couple legally barred from marrying–and I’ve had friends who have had children in all those situations–why on earth would I want to disable that child from taking his or her share of my estate? That just strikes me as not only very old-fashioned, but just downright cruel–punishing the child for the sins of the parent, I suppose, except I don’t even see any of those actions on the part of the parent as sins.</p>
<p>
Probably to cover complicated relationships in a will. This is just a guess.
For example:
<p>Joe died. So, I guess, when it comes to inheritance, Joe leaves x% to legitimate children (#1) and Y% to illegitimate children. Presume Joe is a Getty or a Vanderbilt.</p>
<p>Obviously, illegitimate children benefit from affirmative action when they apply to colleges.</p>
<p>So I’m wondering if a legally married couple have a child- but use a surrogate to bear the child, or a boyfriend to impregnate the wife, does that change anything?</p>
<p>In that context- using “illegitimate or not” reminds me of when women were considered their husbands property. You could not claim rape against your husband, and I guess that if you had a child, even if you knew he wasnt the father, the child was still assumed to be so.</p>
<p>When wills and trusts are written now - and for the last decades - the more standard language is to refer to “issue” and specifically to “issue acknowledged by me”. Language also often refers to “adopted by me”. If there are questions about which children, which marriage, etc., the usual practice is to name the ones you want to include so there is no doubt. No one cares about whether a child is born to married parents. The goal is to make sure your estate goes to those children you have chosen and to exclude any you want to exclude. Problems arise when an excluded child is not specifically named, like when sloppy drafting allows for unknown children to assert claims. But born in marriage? Not a legal concern.</p>
<p>“Probably to cover complicated relationships in a will. This is just a guess.”</p>
<p>I don’t think that is what the poster was referring to due to their saying their viewpoints are “somewhat traditional.” Sounds to me that the poster considers all children born to parents who aren’t married illegitimate in all circumstances, not simply for estate planning and wills.</p>
<p>Retread the fourth sentence in the paragraph in which you got your question from. </p>
<p>Your question will be answered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suggest you read the following conversation after that post to fully understand.</p>
<p>I don’t see the problem. A child born out of wedlock, under the traditional definition of “legitimate”, is illegitimate. By definition. If you want to shed some light on me, please do.</p>
<p>I read everything you wrote but I still don’t understand a mindset that would differentiate between the two.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is archaic and wills do not routinely distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children.</p>
<p>
There’s no mindset needed. </p>
<p>It’s one or the other. Was this child born from two people who are married? Yes? Legitimate. No? Illigitimate. Were the fan blades moving? Yes? The fan is on. No? The fan is off.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would consider it to be malpractice for a lawyer to use that language, given the holding of [Trimble</a> v. Gordon](<a href=“Trimble v. Gordon :: 430 U.S. 762 (1977) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center”>Trimble v. Gordon :: 430 U.S. 762 (1977) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center). </p>
<p>The problem is that courts can refuse to enforce provisions of private wills or contract if they find it to be against public policy. So in the face of a challenge to a will by a child of the deceased born out-of-wedlock, it is possible that the court would ignore such language. </p>
<p>That’s why a capable lawyer would choose language similar to what Lergnom describes.</p>
<p>^ When you are practically the only person on the planet who considers kids whose parents aren’t married illegitimate, it is.</p>
<p>You clearly did not read everything. </p>
<p>Do you care to explain what bothered you about my posts?</p>
<p>I’m bothered by anyone who, in this day and age, could label any child illegitimate for any reason.</p>
<p>You’re kidding right?</p>
<p>There is no labeling of illegitimate except by people stuck in the past. Not even legal experts use it.</p>
<p>“Illegitimate” has a definition. So does “■■■■■■.” Nobody should use either of these terms to describe another human being.</p>
<p>To put it another way, it’s no longer (at least in many circles) considered good manners to refer to other people with labels that reflect the wrongdoing of others outside their control. Thus for example, it has become common not to call people “slaves” but to call them “enslaved persons.” It sounds odd, perhaps, but the idea is that one person’s basic identity doesn’t grow from the fact that he was enslaved by somebody else. I think the same should be true of the children we’re talking about. I have no problem saying that a man fathered a child out of wedlock, but that doesn’t (in my mind) give me occasion to call the child illegitimate. This is all semantics, of course, but words do matter.</p>