Adult Children, Estrangement & Estate Planning Reality: Lessons from a Recent Supreme Court Decision

At Inherit Australia, we often hear the same concern from will-makers and advisers alike:

“If I don’t leave something to my adult children, won’t they just be overturned?”

A recent Supreme Court decision out of Tasmania provides a timely and reassuring answer and reinforces why good estate planning still matters.

The case in brief

In Smith, Smith and Burke v Flint [2026] TASSC 2, three adult children brought family provision claims against their parent’s estate.

They were:

• Financially independent,

• Not dependants, and

• Largely estranged from the deceased for many years.

The estate was modest, with its main asset a residential property left to the executor and the primary beneficiary.

Despite this, the applicants argued that the will failed to make adequate provision for them.

The Court’s decision

All three claims were dismissed.

No further provision was ordered from the estate.

 Why this decision matters

The Court’s reasoning cuts through several persistent myths about family provision claims:

• Adult children are not automatically entitled to inherit Family provision law is not a guarantee of inheritance. Adult children must demonstrate real need or an unmet moral obligation not simply disappointment.

• Financial independence is a powerful factor Where adult children are capable of supporting themselves, courts are slow to intervene.

• Estrangement is a relevant context While estrangement is not determinative on its own, the Court accepted that a will-maker is entitled to reflect the reality of their relationships when planning their estate.

• Estate size matters In modest estates, courts are particularly cautious about redistributing assets without compelling justification.

• Testamentary freedom still has real force A rational, coherent will aligned with the deceased’s circumstances will usually be respected.

Importantly, the applicants failed at the threshold jurisdictional stage. The Court did not even reach the question of what provision might have been appropriate.

 What this means for estate planning advisers

This decision reinforces several core principles we focus on at Inherit Australia:

• Estate planning is about clarity, not just documents 

• Courts respect well-considered testamentary intentions

• Family provision risk can be managed, not just feared

• Adult children claims succeed on evidence not assumption

For advisers, it highlights the importance of:

• Understanding family dynamics early,

• Documenting intentions clearly, and

• Designing estate plans that are legally defensible, not just technically valid.