When Your Parent Dies Without a Will: The Inheritance Battle Between a New Partner and the Children

It is an increasingly familiar family.

A parent separates or divorces. They begin a new relationship. The new couple live together for years. Perhaps they regard themselves as husband and wife. Perhaps they share the mortgage, the household bills and their lives.

There may also be children from the parent’s earlier marriage or relationship.

Then the parent dies. And there is no will.

At that point, assumptions about who “ought” to inherit collide with the law.

The surviving partner may assume: “We lived together for 15 years. Of course I inherit.”

The children may assume: “It was Dad’s property. We are his children. It comes to us.”

Under the present law of England and Wales, the children may be much closer to the legal answer.

An unmarried cohabiting partner has no automatic right to inherit on intestacy.

It does not matter simply that the relationship lasted five, ten, twenty or thirty years. There is no legal status of “common-law husband” or “common-law wife” which automatically gives a cohabitee the inheritance rights of a spouse.

And that can produce exactly the kind of inheritance dispute which nobody contemplated while the deceased was alive.

A familiar blended family

The following example is entirely fictional and is used only to illustrate how the rules can operate. It is not a real case.

David has two adult children from his first marriage. After his divorce he meets Sarah. David and Sarah live together for 14 years.

David owns the house in his sole name. Sarah treats it as her home. She contributes towards household expenses and they live as a committed couple.

David repeatedly says: “Don’t worry. You’ll always have the house.”

But David never makes a will. Then he dies unexpectedly.

What happens?

Under the current intestacy rules, Sarah does not automatically inherit the house merely because she was David’s partner. David’s children are his descendants and may inherit his estate under the statutory intestacy regime.

Sarah may therefore find herself living in a house which legally forms part of an estate inherited by David’s children. The children may want the property sold. Sarah may say that David would never have wanted her to lose her home.

And an inheritance dispute has begun.

What happens if there is a spouse?

If the deceased was legally married or in a civil partnership when they died, the position is very different.

A surviving spouse or civil partner has statutory rights under the intestacy rules. Where there are also children, the estate may be divided between the spouse or civil partner and the descendants according to those rules.

But an unmarried partner currently has no equivalent automatic entitlement. That difference can be enormous.

The new partner may not be without a remedy

The fact that a cohabitee has no automatic right on intestacy does not necessarily mean that they must receive nothing.

A surviving partner may be able to bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Under the current law, a person who lived in the same household as the deceased as if they were married or civil partners for the whole of the two years immediately before death may fall within the categories entitled to make a claim. Other routes may sometimes be relevant, for example where the deceased was maintaining the surviving partner.

But entitlement to apply is not the same as an automatic entitlement to inherit. The survivor must establish that the intestacy — or the will, if there is one — failed to make reasonable financial provision for them. The court then has to consider the statutory factors and the competing claims. A 1975 Act claim does not succeed automatically.

That means litigation may be required before the partner receives anything.

The conflict with the children

This is where matters become particularly difficult in blended families.

Suppose the deceased has a long-term partner; adult children from an earlier relationship; a house; savings; and no will.

The intestacy rules may favour the children. But the surviving partner may have a strong claim for financial provision.

The result can be a direct conflict between the person who shared the deceased’s later life and the children who expected to inherit from their parent.

Neither side necessarily sees itself as unreasonable.

The partner may say: “I helped build this life. He would never have wanted me made homeless.”

The children may say: “This was our father’s property. Why should it all pass out of our family?”

Both positions may feel morally compelling. The law then has to resolve competing expectations which the deceased could often have addressed simply by making a properly considered will.

One death — two expectations

Surviving partner — “We built a life together.”

The estate

Adult children — “It was our parent’s property.”

No will ↓ the law decides the starting point.

The house is often where the war starts

Cash can be divided. A house cannot always be divided in the same way.

The surviving partner may need security, somewhere to live, and perhaps a life interest or right of occupation.

The children may want their inheritance, capital now rather than at an uncertain future date, or the ability to sell the property.

Possible solutions can include:

• a sale;
• a transfer;
• a lump-sum payment;
• a life interest;
• a right to occupy;
• a deferred sale;
• other assets passing to the children; or
• a negotiated combination of these.

These are precisely the kinds of solutions which may be easier to explore in mediation than through an all-or-nothing court determination.

The law may be about to change

In June 2026 the Ministry of Justice launched a major consultation entitled “A fairer end to relationships”. It included proposals to reform the inheritance rights of cohabiting partners. The consultation closed on 14 August 2026.

The Government has not yet changed the law. But it is considering whether qualifying cohabitants should receive automatic rights under the intestacy rules.

Source: Ministry of Justice, “A fairer end to relationships”, published 5 June 2026.

The consultation

What is being proposed?

1. 1

   Automatic inheritance rights

   The Government consulted on whether qualifying cohabitants should inherit under the intestacy rules in the same way as a spouse or civil partner, and indicated that it was minded towards a clear model of equivalent entitlement rather than a complicated partial entitlement.

2. 2

   A qualifying relationship

   Not every boyfriend or girlfriend would automatically qualify. The consultation considers a definition based broadly upon living together in the same household as if spouses or civil partners, together with a minimum qualifying period.

3. 3

   Children may affect the qualifying period

   The consultation considers whether the minimum period should operate differently where the couple have a child together, and proposes widening access to Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claims for some cohabitants with children together.

4. 4

   Administering the estate

   If qualifying cohabitants acquire intestacy rights, the Government also proposes giving them equivalent priority to apply for the Grant of Administration. At present an unmarried partner may have no priority simply by virtue of being the deceased’s partner.

These are consultation proposals. They are not law, and the Government has not decided whether or how to legislate.

The Government’s dilemma

This is not an easy reform.

On one side is an obvious argument. Modern families do not always marry. A couple may live together for decades, raise children, share finances and regard themselves as a permanent family. It can seem harsh that one partner can die intestate and the survivor has no automatic inheritance entitlement. The Government notes that more than 3.5 million couples now cohabit without marrying or entering a civil partnership.

But there is another side. Giving a cohabiting partner automatic inheritance rights changes what the deceased’s children may receive. That matters particularly in blended families.

A person may live with a new partner for many years while still intending ultimately to leave substantial wealth to children from an earlier relationship. Treating the new partner exactly like a spouse on intestacy could substantially reduce or postpone what those children receive.

The consultation itself recognises that particular concerns arise where the deceased had children from an earlier relationship.

Source: Ministry of Justice consultation, 2026.

Possible questions immediately arise. How long must the couple have lived together? What does “living together as spouses” mean? What if one kept another property? What if the relationship had temporarily broken down? What if the deceased remained legally married to somebody else? What if the relationship was deliberately kept financially separate? What if the children say: “Dad specifically chose not to marry her because he wanted us to inherit”?

Reform will not end inheritance wars

The Government consultation recognises that giving cohabitants automatic inheritance rights would not eliminate disputes. It specifically identifies cases involving children from a previous relationship as an area where competing interests may remain.

That is important. Changing the statutory starting point does not remove the human conflict. It changes where the argument begins.

Simplified visual explainer

Current law: where a long-term unmarried partner stands

1. 1

   Long-term unmarried partner

2. 2

   No automatic entitlement on intestacy

3. 3

   Children and other relatives inherit under the statutory hierarchy

4. 4

   Partner may need a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

5. 5

   Potential litigation

Under the model being consulted upon, a qualifying cohabitant might instead take an intestacy entitlement similar to a spouse or civil partner, children’s entitlement could reduce or be postponed, and disputes could arise over whether the partner qualified. That model is subject to consultation and has not become law.

The argument may simply move

Under today’s law the argument may be: “Why should the partner receive anything?”

Under a reformed system it may become: “Why should the partner receive so much?” Or: “Were they really qualifying cohabitants?” Or: “What about the children from the first marriage?”

So reform may reduce the hardship caused by straightforward intestacies involving long-term partners. But it cannot legislate away family history; estrangement; different contributions; promises; housing needs; stepchildren; second families; resentment; and competing ideas of what the deceased “would have wanted”.

The best solution is still to make a will

Intestacy law is a fallback. It exists because the deceased did not leave a valid will determining what should happen.

Whether or not the Government ultimately changes the law, anyone in a blended family should think carefully about their testamentary arrangements and take professional legal advice.

A properly prepared will can address questions such as:

• Should the partner inherit the house outright?
• Should the partner be allowed to live there for life?
• Should the house ultimately pass to the children?
• Should children receive other assets immediately?
• Should the estate be divided in percentages?
• How should pensions, jointly owned assets and life policies fit into the overall plan?
• Should the reasons for the arrangements be recorded?

This article does not provide individual estate-planning advice. Specific arrangements require advice from a suitably qualified professional.

A will does not guarantee there will be no dispute

Making a will greatly improves clarity. But it cannot guarantee peace.

A disappointed child or partner may still raise issues involving the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975; testamentary capacity; undue influence; knowledge and approval; proprietary estoppel; beneficial ownership of property; or promises made during the deceased’s lifetime.

The purpose of a will is not to make litigation impossible. It is to remove one enormous source of uncertainty.

When the partner and the children both have a point

These disputes are particularly well suited to mediation because the legal answer may not provide the best practical solution.

Consider the family home. The partner may genuinely need somewhere to live. The adult children may legitimately expect to receive an inheritance.

A court may ultimately decide what reasonable financial provision should be made. But mediation can explore solutions which reflect both interests. For example:

• the partner remains in the property for a defined period;
• the partner receives a life interest;
• the property is transferred subject to a balancing payment;
• the house is sold but the partner receives sufficient capital to rehouse;
• the children receive other assets; or
• inheritance is deferred rather than eliminated.

The precise solution will depend upon the facts. The important difference is that the family retains some control over it.

Claims of this kind are considered further in our analysis of Ilott v The Blue Cross and Howe v Howe, and on our specialist page on Inheritance Act claims and probate and estate administration.

The human problem

For the surviving partner, this may be about their home. For the children, it may be about their parent’s legacy.

For both, it may also be about something which has very little to do with money.

The new relationship may already have changed the family dynamic. Children may feel that the new partner displaced them during the parent’s lifetime. The partner may feel that the children never accepted the relationship.

Old grievances can then become attached to a house, a bank account or a probate dispute. That is why these cases can escalate with extraordinary speed after a death — a pattern reflected in the rising number of contested estates we examine in Inheritance Disputes Are Rising.

Changing the law will change the starting point — not the family

The Government’s proposed reform addresses a genuine problem. Under current English law, somebody can share their life with a partner for decades and still receive nothing automatically if that partner dies intestate.

Giving qualifying cohabitants inheritance rights may prevent some obvious hardship. But it will not remove inheritance disputes. In some blended families, it may simply reverse the direction of the complaint.

Today the surviving partner may say: “How can I be entitled to nothing?”

Tomorrow the deceased’s children may say: “How can Dad’s new partner be entitled to so much?”

There is no statutory formula capable of reconstructing every complicated family. That is why wills matter. And where a death has already occurred and competing expectations have hardened into a dispute, it is also why mediation matters.

Because the law can decide who is entitled to what. A mediated settlement can ask a rather more useful question:

“How can we provide for the partner without destroying the children’s inheritance — or the family?”

The pension may now add more fuel to the fire

For many years, pension wealth often sat outside the estate for Inheritance Tax purposes.

That could make the apparent value of an estate misleading. A parent might die owning a house worth £500,000, relatively modest savings, and a pension fund worth another £400,000. Historically, most unused pension funds held under discretionary arrangements could generally pass outside the deceased’s estate for Inheritance Tax purposes.

That position is changing.

From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and pension death benefits will be brought within the value of the deceased’s estate for Inheritance Tax purposes. The reform was announced at the Autumn Budget 2024 and has now been legislated for in the Finance Act 2026.

This change concerns the treatment of pensions for Inheritance Tax. It does not mean that pensions simply become probate assets or that they necessarily pass under the will or intestacy rules. Many pension death benefits will continue to be paid under pension-scheme rules and discretionary arrangements rather than passing under the will. The distinction is important.

Why does that matter in a blended family?

Because pension wealth can be substantial.

Consider the fictional example used above. David dies leaving a house of £500,000, savings of £100,000 and an unused pension of £400,000. At first sight, the probate estate may appear to be £600,000. But from April 2027, most unused pension wealth will also be taken into account when calculating the estate for Inheritance Tax.

That can produce a larger taxable estate, a larger Inheritance Tax bill, less wealth ultimately available to beneficiaries, and more reason for the surviving partner and children to scrutinise who receives what.

Who gets the pension?

This can create another layer of conflict.

A deceased person may have children from an earlier relationship, a new unmarried partner, an old expression-of-wish or nomination form, or no clear nomination at all. The pension trustees or scheme administrator may therefore have to decide who should receive discretionary death benefits.

The result may not correspond with the intestacy rules, the will, or what different family members believe the deceased intended.

So one death can potentially produce several separate questions:

• Who inherits the estate?
• Who receives the pension?
• Who pays the Inheritance Tax?
• Does the surviving partner have a 1975 Act claim?
• And what is left for the children?

A tax change with family consequences

The Government’s stated purpose is primarily tax policy. It wants to remove the advantage under which pensions have increasingly been used as a vehicle for transferring accumulated wealth after death. But one practical consequence is that substantial pension wealth will increasingly become part of the economic picture when families consider inheritance.

HMRC estimates that in 2027–28 approximately 10,500 estates will become liable to Inheritance Tax when they would not previously have been, and around 38,500 estates will pay more Inheritance Tax. For affected estates, HMRC estimates the average additional liability at approximately £34,000.

These are Government estimates and not predictions for any individual estate.

Source: HMRC, Inheritance Tax: unused pension funds and death benefits.

More fuel for the inheritance fire

For blended families the significance is obvious. There may now be arguments not only about the house, the savings and the intestacy rules, but also about a pension worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, who receives it, how the resulting Inheritance Tax is borne, and whether the overall division between the surviving partner and children remains fair.

The reform does not create those family tensions. But it can increase the amount of wealth — and therefore the amount of money at stake — when they arise.

Pensions may have sat outside the estate for tax purposes. From April 2027, they may add significantly to the value on which Inheritance Tax is calculated. And that can add more fuel to the inheritance fire.

A dispute between a partner and the family?

ProMediate Inheritance, Probate & Trusts provides specialist mediation for disputes involving intestacy, cohabiting partners, children from previous relationships, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, family homes, estates and inheritance.

Mediation can take place before proceedings or at any stage of an inheritance dispute.

Discuss a Mediation · Meet Our Mediators

Related reading

• Inheritance Disputes Are Rising: Probate Caveats Have Increased by Almost 80% Since 2010
• Ilott v The Blue Cross — the adult child and the animal charities
• Howe v Howe — the daughter deliberately cut out
• Winter v Winter — the family farm promise
• The Inheritance Wars series
• Inheritance, wills and Inheritance Act claims
• Probate and estate administration

The law and reform proposals discussed in this article relate to England and Wales. The Government proposals described are consultation proposals and are not currently law. This article provides general information about inheritance disputes, intestacy and mediation. It does not constitute legal advice.