Can my attorney be my son or daughter?

Appointing more than one child

Many donors appoint two or more children to avoid singling anyone out. How they are appointed matters more than how many:

Gifts, conflicts and inheritance

An attorney who is also a likely beneficiary must still act only in your interests. They can make only very limited customary gifts — birthdays, weddings, seasonal gifts of reasonable size — and cannot use your money to reduce inheritance tax or benefit themselves without Court of Protection approval.

Being a beneficiary of the will does not disqualify anyone from acting as attorney.

One child, or more than one?

There is no rule requiring you to treat children equally on an LPA, but many parents feel there should be one. Appointing an only child, or a single chosen child among several, is entirely valid and often the simplest arrangement: one person deals with the bank, one person speaks to the GP, and there is no need to coordinate signatures or agree every decision with a sibling.

The trade-off is resilience. A single attorney who becomes ill, moves abroad, or simply cannot be reached at the wrong moment leaves the LPA unusable unless you have also named a replacement attorney. Appointing two or more children jointly and severally spreads that risk, at the cost of more people needing to be kept informed.

• One child appointed: simplest to run, but name a replacement in case they cannot act
• Two or more children, jointly and severally: any one can act, so nothing stalls if one is unavailable
• One lead child with siblings as replacements: day-to-day sits with one person, but others are ready if needed
• All children jointly: fair on paper, but every decision needs every signature

Keeping family peace

The most common source of friction is not the appointment itself but the surprise of it. A child who discovers after the event that a sibling was named — or that they were left out — can feel judged, even where the donor simply picked the child who lives nearest or is better with paperwork. Telling children in advance, and explaining the reasoning, prevents most of this.

It helps to separate the practical question from the emotional one. Being named attorney is not a statement about who is loved most; it is a decision about who is available, organised and willing to deal with banks, care providers and medical staff. Saying that plainly, ideally to all the children together, removes most of the guesswork that otherwise turns into resentment years later.

Where this goes wrong on the form

• Naming children jointly for everything, so the LPA stalls the moment one is unreachable
• Not naming a replacement when only one child is appointed
• Assuming a step-child or child-in-law is automatically eligible — they are, but only if named, capacity and (for the financial LPA) bankruptcy checks are met
• Leaving out a child without any explanation, which is legally fine but often causes lasting family conflict

Worked example

Frank has three adult children: Dan, Sarah and Tom. Dan lives nearest and manages Frank's day-to-day banking already, so Frank appoints Dan and Sarah jointly and severally as attorneys, with Tom named as replacement. Sarah lives two hours away but wants to stay involved; Tom, who travels for work, is comfortable being the backup rather than a day-one attorney. Frank tells all three before signing, so nobody is surprised, and each understands why the roles were split the way they were.

Common questions

Read next

• Can I Appoint My Children as Attorneys? — yes, over 18
• Can Brothers and Sisters Be Attorneys Together? — Yes
• Jointly or Jointly and Severally? — LPA decision explained
• Can an attorney also be a beneficiary of the will?
• Can an attorney make gifts from the donor's money?