My dad died suddenly with no will. Am I morally obliged to share his estate with my estranged half-sibling? | Leading questions

My dad died suddenly earlier this year, with no will, and I am unsure as to how I should distribute the estate. We are talking about very modest sums of money – about £5,000 ($US6,750; $AU9,500) in total.

My dad was a very ethical person. While his death was unexpected, he had a sense it was coming. Around six months before he died, he arranged for the disposal of many personal effects. The lack of a will, given his self-discipline and preferences for forward planning, is odd.

My dad has two daughters from a previous relationship, who he was not in contact with until I was in my mid-30s. Their mum had remarried after separating from our dad, and her new husband had formally adopted both her girls. My dad was delighted to resume contact with one half-sister. Another, two years younger, wanted nothing to do with him and firmly disapproved of her sister’s choice to re-establish contact.

Some 10 years ago, I started my own family, relocated to remove myself from domestic abuse, and joined the league of parents of children with additional needs. My dad mentioned that he had a little money put aside that could go towards legal costs, should courts ever become involved in arrangements for my son.

Before it became apparent that there was no will, my initial expectation was that my dad would have split his estate three ways. But that lack of clear direction introduces uncertainty. Did my dad deliberately leave no will, with knowledge that under intestacy laws, biological children that have been adopted have no claim? Did he intend me to distribute his estate in the way we initially assumed? If so, why not make that clear? Do I have a moral obligation to share the estate with my half-siblings? And does the presumption that their legal dad intends to provide for his children equally, and significantly more generously, have any bearing on this?

Eleanor says: It sounds like the process of making this decision has as much significance as the outcome. Partly, deciding ethically is a way of honouring your dad: it’s clearly important to you that he was a profoundly moral man.

And partly, as long as we’re thinking through the estate, it’s not over. We have unfinished business with the person we’ve lost. There’s one more interaction to be had, we’re still in conversation with them; it’s not done. I think that’s part of why estate disputes can get so bloody. Fighting for years over where Mum would have wanted the teaspoons to go can somehow feel preferable to having nothing left to figure out or say about her. Figuring out the details of the estate can, as much as anything else, be a way of keeping the person you loved alive.

I can’t know with total certainty what your dad intended. It’s too particular. How much did he know about estate law? The only possible answer is, “I’m not sure.” But we can know something else: he had the opportunity to find out. He knew they’d been adopted; he wasn’t totally unable to plan for death. If it was very important to him that your sisters receive part of his estate, he could have taken steps to make sure of that.

It sounds as if you won’t feel OK about inheriting more if it feels like your decision. (You are your father’s daughter, when it comes to ethics.) You receiving more needs to feel like honouring his wishes, not just you deciding what’s fair alone. He could have done more to make his wishes explicit, you’re right – but it’s absolutely possible that this was his preference.

He raised you alone, your child has additional needs, your sisters have material resources elsewhere, and there’s the complication that one sister didn’t have a relationship with him, and if you leave some to one sister, you have to leave some to the other. The way he left things produces the result that it all goes to you, without him saying out loud that that’s his wish. If he wanted to rule out that possibility, he could have.

Whatever you decide to do about the estate, it’s worth – as much as you can – trying not to let any possible relationship tensions with your sister play out through money. She has another father figure. You’ve just lost your only one. She has other material inheritance. You’re thinking through your only one. That’s bound to cause some tension, and themes about relative advantage in the rest of life are wont to play out through money. But money isn’t a good proxy for interpersonal issues: it will exacerbate them instead of providing symbolic resolution.

It’s very kind of you to ask whether you should change the way things were left. But another way of looking at it is that the decision’s been made: the law says what happens to people’s estates when they die intestate, and you don’t have clear evidence that he wanted something else instead.

This letter has been edited.

Ask Eleanor a question