Thirty-four years without contact. Nothing left under the will. Case closed?
Not quite.
In a recent NSW Supreme Court decision, an adult daughter who had not seen her father for approximately 34 years was found entitled to receive $125,000 from his estate.
The case is a powerful reminder that family relationships cannot always be understood by counting the years since two people last spoke. When an estranged adult child makes a claim against a parent’s estate, the Court wants to know the story behind the silence.
Can an estranged adult child challenge a will in NSW?
Yes.
Under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), a child of the person who died, including an adult child, is eligible to apply to the Supreme Court of NSW for a family provision order.
Strictly speaking, a family provision claim does not usually involve arguing that the will is invalid. Instead, the adult child asks the Court to change how the estate is distributed because the will did not make adequate provision for their proper maintenance, education or advancement in life.
Being eligible to apply is only the first step. It does not guarantee a share of the estate.
The Court must still consider the adult child’s circumstances, the parent-child relationship, the needs of the beneficiaries, the size of the estate and whether the will failed to make proper provision.
Estrangement can be extremely important, but it is not an automatic disqualification. There is no magic number of years after which an adult child loses the right to have their circumstances considered.
What happened in Nevin v Nevin-Large?
In Nevin v Nevin-Large [2026] NSWSC 1009, the father left his entire estate to Kristie, the daughter of his second marriage.
His other adult daughter, Deanne, received nothing.
Deanne had left the family home at 18 and had no contact with her father for approximately 34 years before his death. She alleged that he had sexually and physically abused her throughout her childhood.
Her father had denied the allegations during his lifetime, and other members of the family did not believe her.
The Court did not simply say, “They were estranged for 34 years, so the claim fails.” It examined the evidence in detail and decided it was appropriate to determine whether the alleged abuse had occurred.
After considering the evidence, the Court found that Deanne had been sexually and physically abused by her father between the ages of four and 18.
The Court also examined the sisters’ very different, but competing, circumstances:
- Deanne had significant health issues, limited income, almost no cash savings and no superannuation. She owned property with equity but was struggling with two mortgages and substantial repair costs.
- Kristie had cared for her father for approximately 10 years with limited family support. She had financial needs of her own and did not own a home.
- The Court worked with a net distributable estate of approximately $665,000, before the final effect of legal costs. It described the estate as relatively modest.
Balancing that complete picture, the Court found that leaving Deanne with nothing was not adequate provision. It concluded that she should receive a lump sum of $125,000.
Importantly, this was not a punishment for Kristie, nor was it simply a reward for Deanne. The Court recognised that both daughters had strong claims on a limited estate.
The big lesson: estrangement is part of the story, not the end of it
A long period without contact can count against an adult child, particularly where they chose to end the relationship without a reasonable explanation.
But the Court will usually ask why the relationship ended.
Was there abuse, family violence, rejection or another serious event? Who withdrew from the relationship? Did either person attempt reconciliation? Was the adult child protecting themselves? Are the allegations supported by records, messages or independent witnesses?
The Court does not automatically assume that the person who stayed away was responsible for the estrangement.
In Nevin, the reason for the estrangement was critical. The Court found that Deanne did not simply lose interest in her father or walk away from an otherwise healthy relationship. Her lack of contact followed serious abuse.
Three common myths about estranged children and wills
Myth 1: “We haven’t spoken for years, so they cannot make a claim”
There is no automatic cut-off based on the length of the estrangement. 10, 20 or even 34 years without contact does not, by itself, prevent a claim.
The reason for the estrangement is often more important than its duration.
Myth 2: “They own a house, so they cannot possibly succeed”
Owning property does not automatically defeat a family provision claim.
The Court looks at the person’s complete financial position, including mortgages, cash flow, debts, income, health, dependants, superannuation, earning capacity and access to readily available funds.
An asset on paper does not always mean financial security in practice.
Myth 3: “I explained everything in my will, so the claim cannot succeed”
A statement explaining why someone has been excluded may be relevant evidence, but it does not prevent them from applying.
An angry sentence in a will is not a legal force field. If it is inaccurate, unfair or unnecessarily inflammatory, it may create more problems for the executor and beneficiaries.
What will the Court consider?
No single factor determines the outcome. Depending on the family, the Court may consider:
- the history of the relationship and why contact ended;
- whether either person attempted to repair the relationship;
- the reliability and consistency of the evidence about past events;
- the adult child’s income, property, debts, health, housing, dependants and future needs;
- the circumstances of the people who benefit under the will;
- any care, financial assistance or other contributions made by a beneficiary;
- any financial or other support provided during the parent’s lifetime;
- the parent’s reasons for making the will;
- the size and practical liquidity of the estate; and
- the effect that legal costs may have on the amount available for distribution.
The Court is not simply trying to divide the estate equally between siblings. Its task is to decide whether adequate provision was made and, if not, what provision should now be ordered.
Evidence matters: the Court cannot replay the family’s history
Family provision disputes often involve events that occurred many years, or even decades earlier. By the time the case reaches Court, the person who made the will is no longer available to give their account.
That makes evidence especially important.
Relevant evidence may include:
- letters, emails and text messages;
- medical, counselling or psychological records;
- diary entries or contemporaneous notes;
- earlier wills and the solicitor’s will file;
- evidence from relatives, friends, neighbours or other people with direct knowledge of the relationship;
- records of financial assistance or gifts; and
- a clear chronology showing when and why the relationship changed.
Memory matters, but documents and independent evidence can help the Court understand what actually happened.
Thinking about making a claim? Do not leave it until the last minute
A family provision application in NSW generally must be filed within 12 months of the person’s death under section 58 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).
That deadline runs from the date of death, not from the date probate is granted or the date you discover that you were left out.
If you are considering a claim:
- obtain a copy of the will;
- prepare a timeline of the relationship;
- preserve messages, letters and other relevant records;
- identify people with direct knowledge of the family history;
- collect accurate information about your income, assets, debts, health and expenses; and
- obtain advice before the estate is distributed.
A late application may sometimes be permitted, but it should never be assumed that the Court will allow one.
Making a will where there is family estrangement?
If you intend to exclude an adult child, or leave them substantially less than their siblings, careful planning matters.
Your overall estate plan should also consider superannuation, jointly owned property, binding death benefit nominations and the amount of cash available to meet debts, tax, legal costs and any potential claim.
A properly prepared will cannot guarantee that nobody will make a claim. It can, however, place your executor in a much stronger position to respond.
What should an executor do if a claim is threatened?
An executor is not the family referee. Their role is to protect and administer the estate appropriately.
If a credible claim is raised, practical steps may include:
- obtaining legal advice promptly;
- preserving the will file, earlier wills and relevant family correspondence;
- avoiding premature distribution of the estate;
- obtaining reliable valuations and an accurate picture of the estate;
- gathering information about the circumstances of the beneficiaries; and
- considering early mediation before legal costs consume a substantial part of the estate.
This is particularly important where the estate is modest. A family may spend years arguing over who should receive the pie, only to discover that legal costs have made the pie much smaller.
What this decision does (and does not) mean
Nevin v Nevin-Large does not mean that every estranged adult child will receive part of their parent’s estate.
It does not mean that a parent must leave their estate equally between their children.
It also does not mean that the Court will overlook the care, contributions and financial needs of the beneficiaries named in the will.
What it does show is that estrangement is rarely a complete answer by itself. The Court will look beyond the label and examine the family history, the evidence, the competing needs and the practical value of the estate.
The takeaway
Thirty-four years of silence did not tell the whole story in Nevin.
Whether you are an adult child who has been left out, a parent making a difficult estate-planning decision, or an executor caught in the middle, early advice and good evidence can make an enormous difference.
How Madison Marcus can help
Madison Marcus assists adult children, parents, executors and beneficiaries with estate planning and family provision disputes.
We can help you understand your options, assess the risks, preserve important evidence, protect the estate and explore a practical resolution before costs and conflict escalate.
