Can Parents Disinherit a Child in California

Emily just received a heartbreaking phone call. Her mother’s will, signed just six months ago, completely removed her as a beneficiary. After decades of a close relationship, she was cut out entirely, with her inheritance going instead to a new “friend” of her mother’s. The cost? Potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. But more importantly, the emotional toll of feeling rejected and unappreciated. The will itself seemed fine on the surface, but Emily suspected something wasn’t right, and feared her mother hadn’t been in her right state of mind when she made the changes.

The simple answer is yes, California parents can disinherit a child. There’s no law requiring parents to leave an equal share to their children, or to leave anything at all. However, successfully disinheriting a child isn’t always straightforward, and a will can be challenged in court for various reasons. As an estate planning attorney and CPA with over 35 years of experience here in Escondido, I’ve seen countless cases where these attempts go awry. It’s rarely as simple as a signature on a piece of paper.

What Can Be Done to Challenge a Will?

Several legal grounds exist for contesting a will in California. The most common involve issues of capacity, undue influence, or fraud. Each has its own stringent requirements, and success isn’t guaranteed. Let’s look at each scenario.

What if Mom Didn’t Have the Mental Capacity to Change Her Will?

A valid will requires the testator – the person making the will – to have “testamentary capacity.” This doesn’t mean they need to be brilliant or fully alert. Probate Code § 6100.5 dictates that California uses a relatively low threshold for capacity. A person is considered of ‘sound mind’ unless they lacked the ability to understand the nature of the testamentary act, the nature of their property, or their relationship to living family members (or suffered from a specific delusion).

If Emily can demonstrate her mother suffered from dementia, a significant cognitive decline, or another mental impairment at the time of signing the new will, the court might invalidate it. This often requires medical testimony, including a review of doctor’s records and potentially expert witness evaluations. Proving this can be complex, especially if the mother had previously received medical care.

Is Undue Influence a Factor?

Undue influence occurs when someone improperly pressures or coerces the testator into changing their will. This often arises when a caregiver, friend, or new acquaintance exerts control over a vulnerable senior. It’s important to remember that simply having a close relationship isn’t enough. There must be evidence of manipulation or a breach of free will.

Probate Code § 21380 is critical here: California law presumes undue influence if a gift is made to a care custodian of a dependent adult. The burden of proof shifts to the caregiver to prove they did not coerce the senior. If they fail, they are disinherited and often liable for attorney fees. In Emily’s case, the timing—a new will appearing shortly after the “friend” came into the picture—raises a red flag.

Could the Will Be the Result of Forgery or Fraud?

If Emily suspects the will isn’t her mother’s signature, she’s alleging forgery. This requires a forensic handwriting expert to compare the signature on the will to known, genuine samples. Proving fraud is different, and even more challenging.

It’s important to distinguish between Execution Fraud (forged signature) and Inducement Fraud (lying to the testator): “…proving a signature is fake often requires a forensic handwriting expert, whereas proving fraud in the inducement requires evidence that the testator relied on a lie (e.g., ‘your son is stealing from you’) to change their estate plan.”

What if Mom Changed Her Will But Didn’t Actually Know What She Was Doing?

This ties back into capacity, but it’s worth highlighting. Even if the mother signed the will, if she didn’t understand she was signing a document that altered her estate plan, it could be challenged.

What About “No Contest” Clauses?

Many wills include a “no-contest” clause, also known as an in terrorem clause. These clauses attempt to discourage beneficiaries from challenging the will by threatening disinheritance if they do. However, Probate Code § 21311 limits their enforceability: “…a ‘No-Contest’ clause is only enforceable against a beneficiary if they bring a contest without probable cause. If the beneficiary has a reasonable basis for the challenge (e.g., strong evidence of forgery), the court will not strip them of their inheritance for fighting back.”

Who Even Has the Standing to Contest a Will?

Not just anyone can challenge a will. Probate Code § 48 requires you to be an ‘interested person’—meaning you would financially benefit if the current will is overturned (e.g., a child disinherited by a new will, or a beneficiary named in a previous version). Emily, as a previously named beneficiary, clearly has standing.

The Importance of a CPA’s Perspective

As a CPA as well as an estate planning attorney, I’ve seen firsthand how crucial it is to understand the tax implications of will contests. A disinheritance can create unintended capital gains taxes and affect the step-up in basis of assets. Fighting a will isn’t just about emotion; it’s about preserving your financial future. We can perform a thorough valuation of the estate and advise you on the potential tax consequences of each course of action.

If you’re facing a similar situation with a will that seems unfair or suspicious, don’t delay. The time to act is often limited.

How do enforcement rules in California probate court shape outcomes for heirs and fiduciaries?

The path through California probate is rarely a straight line; it requires precise adherence to statutory deadlines, accurate asset characterization, and strict fiduciary compliance. Without a clear roadmap, what begins as a standard administrative proceeding can quickly dissolve into a costly battle over interpretation, valuation, and beneficiary rights.

• Court Battles: Prepare for litigating probate disputes if agreement fails.
• Validity: Understand the grounds for contesting a will.
• Cross-Over: Navigate complex probate and trust disputes.

A stable probate administration outcome usually follows from clarity, consistency, and readiness for court review, especially when multiple stakeholders and competing interpretations are involved. When documentation supports enforcement and timelines are respected, families are less likely to face preventable escalation.

Verified Authority on California Will Contests

• The 120-Day Statute of Limitations: California Probate Code § 8270
  Time is the enemy in a will contest. Under Section 8270, an interested person may petition the court to revoke the probate of a will, but this petition MUST be filed within 120 days after the will is admitted. Missing this deadline is usually fatal to the case.
• Mental Competency Standard: California Probate Code § 6100.5 (Unsound Mind)
  This statute defines exactly what “mental incompetency” means in probate. It is not just general forgetfulness; the contestant must prove the deceased did not understand the nature of the testamentary act, could not recollect their property, or was suffering from a specific hallucination or delusion that dictated the will’s terms.
• Presumption of Undue Influence (Caregivers): California Probate Code § 21380
  To protect vulnerable seniors, California law automatically presumes undue influence if a will leaves assets to a paid care custodian or the lawyer who drafted the instrument. This shifts the heavy burden of proof onto the accused to prove their innocence.
• No-Contest Clause Enforceability: California Probate Code § 21311
  Many wills contain threats to disinherit anyone who challenges them. This statute limits the power of those clauses. A beneficiary cannot be penalized for a contest if the court finds they had “probable cause” to file the lawsuit.
• Standing to Contest: California Probate Code § 48 (Interested Person)
  Not everyone can sue. To contest a will, you must qualify as an “interested person”—typically an heir who would inherit under intestate succession (if there were no will) or a beneficiary named in a prior valid will.
• Financial Elder Abuse Remedies: California Probate Code § 859 (Double Damages)
  Will contests often overlap with elder abuse claims. If the court finds that a person used undue influence, fraud, or bad faith to take assets (or change a will) to the detriment of the estate, they can be liable for twice the value of the property taken, plus attorney fees.