One child gets the deposit. The other two are watching.

They will be. Not out of greed, but because “fair” is one of the deepest things families keep score on. If you don’t decide now how this contribution fits into the bigger picture, the decision gets made later, by circumstances, by memory, and sometimes by lawyers reading a will that never mentioned it.

Equal isn’t the only kind of fair. You might intend to give each child the same amount eventually. You might decide one child needed more, or needed it sooner, and that’s that. Either is a decision you’re entitled to make.

Parents genuinely differ on this. Money.com.au’s 2026 survey found only 45% plan to help all their children equally, while a quarter plan to give different amounts depending on need. Most expect it to balance out anyway: in Mozo’s survey, 66% of parents said it “all evens out” over time.

The problem isn’t the choice. It’s leaving the choice unspoken and undocumented, so each child fills the gap with their own assumption. The sibling who feels quietly short-changed rarely says so at the time. It surfaces during estate administration, when you’re not there to explain what you meant. When University of Queensland researchers reviewed a year of contested-estate judgments, children had brought 67 of the 108 claims, and most of those were sibling against sibling.

This is the part that’s easy to skip. If “fair” means matching what the first child got, the first gift sets the figure for the rest. On Mozo’s average of $74,040, matching it for three children commits about $222,000 of family money. On your $80,000, it’s $240,000.

That money doesn’t leave all at once, which is why it’s easy to underestimate. Children buy years apart, and the youngest may be a decade away from a deposit. So two practical questions sit behind the word “fair”.

The first is liquidity. Can you keep the other two shares (about $160,000 on your numbers) available for years without needing them yourself in the meantime? The second is how long the money is tied up. If you lend rather than give, each loan sits inside a child’s mortgage until they repay it or sell, and with three children that can be a large share of your savings sitting in other people’s homes at once. If the total starts to press on your own plans, protecting your retirement covers that side of it.

So plan for all three children at the first transfer, while every option is still open.

A common approach: the contribution is recorded as an advance on that child’s share of your estate, so it’s accounted for when the estate is eventually divided. Lawyers do this with a clause in your will (sometimes called a “hotchpot” or equalisation clause) that says how the earlier help is valued and counted. The child who bought early received part of their inheritance sooner, and the others are made whole later. It keeps the help you’re giving today inside the plan, rather than sitting outside it as an unexplained transfer.

It also takes the pressure off the $222,000 question. If you can’t fund every child in cash, an advance lets your estate do the evening-up instead.

An intention isn’t enough. For the advance to actually count, it usually needs to be reflected in your will, and ideally in a note or deed written at the time of the gift. Verbal fairness has a way of evaporating. Even a well-drafted will can be challenged by a family provision claim, so it helps if your reasons are written down too.

Telling your other children now (“we’re helping your sister, and here’s how we’re keeping it even over time”) is far easier than letting them discover it.

It also lets you hear their view while you can still act on it. If one of them was quietly counting on help of their own in a few years, you would rather know that now than read it in an email after the settlement. Nobody is surprised later by a number they were told at the time.

Some families document the help as a loan that is later forgiven against that child’s estate share. It combines protection (a documented loan) with fairness, because the amount is accounted for in the estate.

When and how the loan is forgiven matters. Forgiving it while you’re alive can count as a gift for Centrelink purposes, and the way your will deals with the loan can affect how it’s viewed if your child separates.

Whether it fits you depends on your assets, your wishes, and how many children you expect to help. It’s a structure to put in front of an estate lawyer, not one to draft over the kitchen table, but it is worth knowing it exists before you decide that a plain gift is your only option.

An article can set out the options. It can’t see your family: how many children you have, who is likely to need help and when, what your will says today, or how much you can commit, and for how long, without feeling it yourself.

That’s what a conversation with Fledge is for. It’s free and confidential, and we come back to you within 24 hours. We look at the whole picture with you, including:

• what helping every child could add up to, not just this one
• whether each child’s help works better as a gift, a loan or an advance on inheritance
• what your will needs to say so the plan holds
• how long the money is likely to be tied up, and what that means for you

You leave knowing what matters for your family, what to decide, and in what order, before any money moves. When you need a specialist, we introduce you to the right one: usually an estate lawyer for the will and any loan documents, and a financial adviser if the total starts to touch your retirement.

It’s free because specialists may pay us a referral fee if you choose to work with them. That never costs you anything, and it never changes who we recommend. You don’t need paperwork or numbers ready, just a rough idea of where you’re up to.

Tell us about your family→