Estate of Father v. Evil Stepmother

Re: A Cinderella Story (2004), Another Cinderella Story (2008), Not Cinderella’s Type (2018)/Inheritance and Child Abuse

What rights does a child have when a remarried parent dies?  What rights does a stepparent have to the portion of the estate that belongs to a minor child?  What is child abuse?

Sources:

California Probate Code, Division 2. General Provisions, Secs. 100-147.

California Probate Code, Division 6. Wills, Secs. 6100-6132; Part 2. Intestate Succession, Secs. 6400-6402.5, 6454, 

California Probate Code, Division 7. Administration of Estates of Decedents, Sec. 8200.

California Probate Code, Division 4. Part 9. California Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, Secs. 3900-3925.

Wood v. Woods, 184 Cal. Rptr. 471, 133 Cal. App. 3d 954 (Cal. App. 1982).

 “Child Abuse and Neglect in California Part I” Legislative Analyst’s Office, January 1996. 

Written, Researched, and Recorded by Céleste Young, 2023-2025.
Music: Out On My Skateboard - Mini Vandals

Waitisthatlegal@gmail.com

Transcript

            Cinderella – the classic tale of a mistreated, forgotten stepchild who rises from the literal ashes when she beguiles a prince who searches the kingdom for her with only the glass slipper she left behind.  As a child the evil stepmom trope only really existed in fantasy, but as an adult I’ve read enough advice columns and Reddit threads to know that crappy parents/siblings/relatives do exist in reality.  So unlike a lot of the topics I have questions about in TV shows and movies, this is one that isn’t totally bizarre and out there.  Today’s show is about step family relationships and inheritances.  The animated 1950 Cinderella and its live action 2015 remake show Cinderella as happy young child until her mother dies, then her father remarries.  Her stepmom brings with her two daughters of her own from her previous marriage.  Cinderella’s dad dotes on his biological child, which causes jealousy with his new wife.  When Cinderella’s dad dies she is left an orphan and under the care of her stepmother, who forces her to become a servant in her own house.  Most of the other renditions of the Cinderella story follow this basic beginning and end with Cinderella being found by her prince and living happily ever after.  

            The two Disney versions are meant to be set in fictional Once Upon a Time land, which notably does not have a specific time or place, or set of laws.  However, the 1950s version is based on a French fairytale and based on the style of the clothes in the film has been speculated to be in the mid-to-late 1800s, which would put it within the Napoleonic Code.  Ever After, the Drew Barrymore spin on the story, includes Leonardo da Vinci and other historical figures from 16th century France.  Da Vinci lived in France during the last 3 years of his life 1516-1519, which would mean it is in the Ancien Regime and laws varied based on locale.  However, I am not a historian, nor am I experienced with historical French laws, so we are not going to be discussing the more historical versions of the Cinderella story.  Instead, the more modern versions of the tale, like A Cinderella Story from 2004 with Hilary Duff and Chad Michael Murray and Another Cinderella Story from 2008 with Selena Gomez; are set in the U.S. with A Cinderella Story being expressly set in California’s San Fernando Valley which is in my wheelhouse of legal knowledge.

            So the questions that I always have when watching any modern version of the Cinderella tale are twofold: 1) what parental rights does a stepparent have over stepchildren when the biological parent dies, and how this affects inheritances; and 2) is the stepparent’s treatment of the Cinderella character child abuse?

Modern Cinderella Stories

A Cinderella Story

            In A Cinderella Story, main character, Sam, played by Hilary Duff, has a wonderful life with her widowed dad, until her Stepmom, Fiona, played by Jennifer Coolidge, and Fiona’s two daughters marry into the family.  Her dad dies in an earthquake and Sam is told there was no will and that Fiona now has full control of the house and the diner.  Sam works at the diner, runs all Fiona’s errands, and does her best to keep Fiona happy so that Fiona will help pay for her college.  Of course, in the end Fiona never had any intention of giving Sam any of her dad’s money and she tricks Sam into thinking she didn’t get into Princeton.  Near the end of the movie, Sam finds a copy of her father’s will tucked into the fairy tale book he used to read to her.  The will was signed by Fiona and was supposed to give everything to Sam, so Fiona pretended it didn’t exist.  She is criminally charged and has to make restitution to Sam by working in the diner until she pays off her debt.

            A Cinderella Story is explicitly set in California, so we can use the California Probate Code and other California laws to analyze what would happen in both scenarios present in the movie.  The first is what would happen if Sam’s dad had died without a will, and the second involves “secret wills”.  We should probably also look into Fiona’s treatment of Sam and whether that would be considered child abuse.

Intestate Succession

            Let’s start with the issue of intestacy.  In legal terms, when someone dies and does not have a will they have died intestate.  Each state has its own codified version of intestate succession; California’s appears in the California Probate Code.  California’s scheme is a bit different than, say, New York’s because California has a different system of dealing with marital property.  Marital property is property that is acquired during the marriage, and it depends on the State you are in how it is divided upon death or divorce.  Most states in the U.S. follow the English system of marital property, referred to as the “common law” system.  In a common law state, marital property is determined by which spouse acquired the property and how the property is held.  So, if one spouse is gifted an inheritance, then that money belongs solely to that spouse.  If the couple buys a car and put both names on the title, the car belongs to both of them.  Usually, the longer the marriage lasts and the more comingled the funds are, the more likely it is that all property would be considered as both spouses property.

            In contrast, California and handful of other states follow the Spanish “community property” marital property system.  In a community property state there are two types of property, community property which is owned jointly and equally between the spouses, and separate property, which is owned solely by one spouse.  Community property is all property acquired during the marriage.  Separate property is property acquired before the marriage or after separation, and any property acquired by “gift, devise, bequest, or descent.”  A divorce in a community property state would divide the couple’s community property 50/50, and each spouse would retain all of their separate property.  When a spouse writes a will in a community property state they can only dictate what they want to happen with their separate property and their half of the community property.

            In order to determine intestate succession we need to identify all potential heirs of the deceased and then we need to identify and classify any property owned by the deceased prior to death.  Our decedent here is Sam’s dad, at the time of his death he was married to Fiona, had one natural daughter, Sam, and two stepdaughters.  We don’t know if he has any other surviving relatives because none are mentioned or part of the story, so we will assume that he has no surviving parents, siblings, or extended family.  It is also unclear about the status of the children in the marriage, if the stepchildren are adopted by the stepparent then they are considered to have the same rights of inheritance as natural children, if they are not adopted then they retain their inheritance rights to both of their natural parents, but not their stepparent.  It doesn’t matter if Sam was adopted by Fiona; it wouldn’t change her status as her father’s heir.  It does matter if the stepsisters were adopted by Sam’s dad, if they were they would also be considered his heirs; if they were not, then they would not be included in intestate succession. California law does allow foster or stepchildren to inherit from a foster or stepparent when the parent-child relationship began when the child was a minor and lasted till one of them died.  It also has to be shown that the foster/stepparent would have adopted the child except that there was a legal barrier to the adoption.  In the case of Sam, there was no legal barrier to Fiona being able to adopt her.  With the stepsisters, we don’t know if their biological father is still alive.  If the father is alive and unwilling to give up his parental rights, this would have prevented Sam’s dad from adopting the stepsisters.  If the father is dead, or his parental rights were already terminated in some other way, then they could have been adopted and they would not be able to claim they had a parent-child relationship with Sam’s dad.  They would not be able to make a claim to the estate.   I think it is unlikely the stepsisters were adopted by Sam’s dad, but we will still discuss both scenarios because it could be possible that the stepsisters could prove they had a parent-child relationship.  Scenario A is that Sam is the only child of the deceased dad and Scenario B assumes that the stepsisters were adopted, or had a parent-child relationship, and Sam’s dad had 3 children at the time of his death.

            The property in question is the house, the diner, and any money that Sam’s dad had at his death.  From the opening scenes of the movie it appears that Sam’s dad already owned the house and the diner prior to marrying Fiona.  As a business owned before marriage, the diner would be considered the separate property of Sam’s dad, it does not seem like Fiona was ever transferred any ownership interest in the business due to Sam’s dad being able to give it to her in the will.  If Fiona had been given some ownership of the diner, then the diner would be classified as community property.  Regardless of Fiona’s interests in the diner, any money earned by Sam’s dad during the course of his marriage to Fiona is considered community property.  The house is also separate property unless Sam’s dad put Fiona on the deed.  Cash assets and personal property are also determined by when and how they were acquired.  Money and personal property acquired prior to the marriage are separate property, money gifted or inherited by only one spouse during the marriage is separate property, money earned as income during the marriage is community property, and personal property bought with community money is considered community property.

            To recap, Fiona and Sam are Sam’s dad’s heirs (potentially the stepsisters, too); the diner is likely to be classified as separate property and so is the house.  Any personal property and money from before his marriage to Fiona is separate property and any money earned and property purchased with that money is community property.  

            In Scenario A, Fiona and Sam are the sole heirs.  Under California’s intestate succession, if the decedent is survived by a spouse and one child then the surviving spouse is entitled to the decedent’s ½ of the community property and ½ the decedent’s separate property.  The surviving child would be entitled to the remaining ½ of the separate property.  So Fiona would inherit all the community property (both her ½ and Sam’s dad’s ½).  Fiona and Sam would each inherit ½ of the separate property.  Fiona would inherit any joint bank accounts or assets that were owned jointly.  She could also claim any assets that could be traced exclusively to money earned as income by Sam’s Dad during the marriage.  If Fiona was added to the deed of the house, she would be the sole owner of the house; same for the diner if ownership was legally shared.  The more likely scenario though is that the house and diner were separate property, so the diner and the house would be co-owned equally by both Sam and Fiona.

            If the decedent is survived by a spouse and more than one child, then the surviving spouse is entitled to all the community property and 1/3 of the separate property.  The surviving children would then inherit the remaining 2/3 of the separate property divided equally among them.  So in Scenario B, where the stepdaughters were adopted by Sam’s dad, then Fiona would inherit the community property and 1/3 the separate property; with Sam and the two stepsisters inheriting 1/3 each of the 2/3 remaining separate property.  If the house and the diner are classified as separate property, then they would be owned: 1/3 to Fiona and the remaining 2/3 divided between the 3 children.

            This is all made a bit more complicated by the fact that the children are all minors.  A minor is a person under the age of 18.  Here’s where it would matter if Sam had been adopted by Fiona.  Technically, when there are two biological or adoptive parents of all the minor children in the household, then if one parent dies without specifying otherwise the remaining parent is considered the sole heir.  This is because it is assumed the remaining parent will continue acting in the best interests of the children in the same manner as before the death using the now combined marital assets.  And because the children are all legally related to the deceased and the surviving parent, the inheritance of the assets would work out the same in the long run.  If the deceased parent specifically provides for the minors in a will or trust, or if the minor children are part of a blended family, then the children will be considered separate from the surviving parent.  We only know that Sam refers to Fiona as her stepmom, not as anything else; so I think it is probably safe to assume that Fiona never adopted Sam, nor was she barred legally from being able to adopt Sam.  As such the court would treat Sam as a separate heir to her father’s estate.

            However, minors are not allowed to inherit under California Law’s Uniform Transfers to Minors Act; instead the property must be placed in a trust or conservatorship until the child reaches the age of 18 (or an older specified age).  The will can explicitly name who should act as conservator and potentially name some backup options, if no one is named then the Court has to appoint a conservator.  The conservator could be the parent that the minor child is in the care of, but if the inheritance is substantial enough the Court will probably appoint someone that does not live with the child, or even a trust company.  Conservators must exercise the standard of care that would be used by a reasonably prudent person dealing with property of another, which if they are compensated is as a fiduciary and if they are not compensated is to not act in bad faith, with intentional wrongdoing, or to fail to maintain a standard of prudence that does not result in loss of the property.  The conservator also has to keep the property separate and identified as property being held for a minor and they must keep records of all transactions concerning the property that should be available for inspection by the minor and representatives.

            Basically, this means that under California Law any property inherited by a minor has to be managed by someone else until the minor turns 18.  So any property that Sam inherits from her dad would be placed in a conservatorship with an adult acting as conservator until she reaches 18, then the property would be transferred to them.  It is possible that Fiona could be appointed as conservator, but this would be a huge conflict of interest because she also owns a portion of the estate as one of the intestate heirs.  It would be more likely that the Court would appoint someone else to act as conservator of Sam’s interests, especially in the diner.  But, if for some reason, Fiona was made conservator of Sam’s interests Fiona would be required to act prudently with regards to Sam’s interests in the property and would be required to keep Sam’s portion separate and to keep records of her transactions on Sam’s behalf.  Based on Fiona’s actions in the movie it’s probably safe to assume that Fiona would be liable to Sam for her mismanagement of the diner.

            If Sam’s dad had died without a will, then Fiona would have been entitled to all the community property and at least 1/3 of the separate property.  She never would have inherited everything in her husband’s estate and, under the intestate scenario, the probate court would never have allowed for her to take everything.  The closest Fiona may have gotten to having all the estate would be if she had her share and was the custodian for the rest, and she could have passed this off to Sam as being her having control of everything, but she didn’t ever own all of it.

Secret Will

            The movie handles the issue of the “secret will” correctly.  Fiona knows about her husband’s will, she signed it as a witness, but she fails to file the will with the County after her husband’s death.  California law requires anyone in custody of a will, or who has knowledge of a will’s existence, to file the will with the relevant County.  If they fail to do this then they are liable for all damages to someone affected by the failure.  So Fiona is liable for the damages sustained by Sam as a result of the will not being filed.  The movie shows that Sam gets all the property promised to her by her father and Fiona is ordered by the court to work at the diner to repay the amount of money Fiona fraudulently spent that was lawfully Sam’s.

            The interesting part of this whole scenario is that the will might not have even been enforceable, but by failing to admit it existed Fiona basically waived her opportunity to contest the will.  Under the California Probate Code a testator (or a person with a will) cannot disinherit their spouse.  Children and other legal heirs can always be disinherited in an enforceable will, but a spouse is entitled to inherit something.  A spouse can be left out of a will if they have been provided for otherwise.  Here, if Sam’s dad and Fiona had made some kind of arrangement outside of the will, like putting Fiona’s name on the deed for the house or setting aside a trust, then the will would be enforceable.  

            The scenario of whether he adopted the stepsisters or not would not matter for the legality of the will; children can be intentionally or unintentionally left out of a will and the will can still be enforced.  Any child of the testator can be expressly disinherited as long as it is clearly stated in the will that the testator intends for that specific child, or even children, not to receive anything.  A child who is not mentioned in the will and there is reason to believe that the testator was not aware of their existence or relationship to them, or they were believed to be dead, is considered omitted.  Omitted children left out of the will unintentionally or by mistake are entitled to an equal share of the benefit given to an expressly named child.  So if Sam’s dad wrote his will after marrying Fiona, but before adopting the stepsisters, they might be considered mistakenly omitted because he did not know would have other children besides Sam at the time of his death.

            Had Fiona filed the will after her husband’s death and then contested it based on the fact that she was not included, she might have been able to invalidate it.  This would have been somewhat strange, because she did sign the will as a witness so unless she mistakenly believed that she was provided for in another way or if she had always intended to hide the will if her husband died, then why would she agree to give Sam everything.  At any rate, if the will was considered unenforceable by a Judge then Fiona would have inherited based on intestate succession, which means she would have gotten all the community property and some of the separate property.  Instead, Fiona chose to unlawfully conceal the existence of the will which would have waived any chance for her to contest it and she would have ended up as she did in the movie, with nothing and now in Sam’s debt.

            The Public Service Announcement here is that writing a will is important if you want to control your assets after death, but it is equally important that you consult with a lawyer while writing the will to make sure that the will is legally binding and will actually do what you intend it to do.  If you are asked to be a witness to a will, make sure that you understand what the document is saying and do not sign it if you do not agree with it.  If you sign it, make sure you remember to disclose its existence when the person dies because you may be legally required to, and if there are challenges to its validity or contents you will likely be summoned to testify to its contents.  If you write a will you should make sure that multiple people know about it and that it is in a safe, accessible place in the event that you die.  In many jurisdictions you can register a will so it is public record when you die.  You can ask your lawyer what you can do to make sure that no one tries to hide your will.  And for the love of not making your life into the plot of a movie, if you put a copy of your will inside your child’s storybook, don’t just give a vague “this book contains important things,” tell them that if anything happens to you there is a copy of your will in the book, or if you don’t want to admit your potential mortality to your child make sure they understand that there is an important piece of paper inside the book that they might need someday.  Under no circumstances should you leave the only copy of your will in the care of a minor, and definitely do not rely on someone who does not benefit from the will (and is not an uninterested, third-party agent or professional) to do the right thing regarding the will.  Not everyone is an evil, conniving stepmother type, but there are real horror stories out there about inheritances so make sure your interests, and more importantly, your child’s interests, are protected.  PSA over.

Child Abuse

            Now we can look at the question of whether Fiona’s treatment of Sam would constitute child abuse.  California law defines child abuse as physical injury inflicted by another person, sexual abuse of the child, or emotional abuse.  Physical abuse is any non-accidental bodily injury inflicted on a child and includes cruelty, unjustifiable punishment, or corporal punishment.  Emotional abuse is nonphysical mistreatment of a child that causes the child to exhibit “disturbed behavior” like withdrawal or hyperactivity.  It includes willfully causing suffering of a child, inflicting mental suffering, or endangering a child’s emotional well-being.  Child abuse seems to require a level of intent to cause harm or suffering to a child.  In contrast, California’s child neglect laws protect children from a parent, guardian, or caretaker’s failure to act, ie. negligence.  General neglect is the negligent failure of a child’s guardian or caretaker to provide food, clothing, shelter, or supervision.  Severe neglect is when the child’s health is endangered because of the neglect.

            Fiona is pretty horrible to Sam, she makes her do chores and work at the diner which she does not make her own daughters do, and she insults Sam all the time.  If Fiona’s actions are child abuse they would be classified as emotional because she is willfully acting to make Sam miserable and to tear down her self-esteem by telling her she’s not smart and not pretty.  I’m not sure that Fiona’s behavior would be quite bad enough to be considered abuse because Sam is not acting out, and seems to understand that Fiona is an idiot whose opinions do not matter to Sam.  Sam is just putting up with her shitty home life until she can leave for college.  It is also worth noting that Fiona is also not neglectful because Sam does seem to have food, clothing, and a place to live.  That being said Fiona is only just meeting the bare minimum requirements as Sam’s guardian, so although Fiona may not be criminally abusive or neglectful, she is still a terrible person.

            Which brings me to another question: why do the stepparents in these scenarios always feel the need to even keep the Cinderella character around.  In California, there is no recognized legal relationship between a stepparent and an un-adopted stepchild.  In other jurisdictions this is not true, with a stepparent expected to treat the child of their spouse the same as any natural or adopted child, but this is expressly not the case in California (Woods v. Woods).  So when Sam’s father died Fiona had no obligation to continue caring for her and the courts would only have placed Sam with her if there was no other family and Fiona had agreed to be Sam’s guardian.  Fiona clearly did not want Sam around except for the financial benefit which as I mentioned before presents a huge conflict of interest and probably should have been looked into by the courts before agreeing to allow Fiona to be Sam’s guardian.  Also it does not seem that anyone close to Sam ever intervened.  Her best friend had some idea of how Sam was being treated and her coworkers at the diner saw the treatment first hand.  I can understand another teenager not wanting to get involved, but the coworkers are all adults and could have reported the abuse they saw to the proper authorities.

            The other entries in the A Cinderella Story series have similar premises to the first movie, but present some notable differences that could affect the legal outcomes of the characters.  For example, in Another Cinderella Story, Selena Gomez’s character Mary is the adopted daughter of Dominique (played by Jane Lynch) and there does not appear to be any inheritance.  The questions in that entry have more to do with Dominique’s treatment of Mary and the blatant favouritism she shows her biological daughters.  However, like Fiona before, Dominique’s treatment, while bad, does not rise to a criminal level.  Mary seems to live a fairly decent life despite having to do all the chores and owning a Zune.  Dominique does try to stop Mary from going away for school by lying to the school when they call to offer Mary acceptance.  Technically, as Mary’s legal guardian Dominique can make decisions for Mary without her consent, which is obviously a tricky situation because by the time she leaves for college she will be an adult and Dominique can no longer make those decisions for her.  In this situation, Mary could have maybe mitigated some of the risk of Dominique interfering in her future.  I would think that any child in a similar situation could probably talk to a trusted adult and give an address and phone number as a contact that the trusted adult could manage.  Also the school’s guidance counsellor could have probably stepped in as the go between.  I imagine this is less of an issue now because most applications and acceptances are done online and the child could make sure the parent does not know the log in information.       

            In a totally different twist on the tale there is Not Cinderella’s Type (2018) which is the only version I’ve seen that discusses the legal issues and acknowledges the child abuse suffered by the Cinderella character.  In Not Cinderella’s Type, the main character, Indy, loses her mother (her father is not in the picture) and has to move in with her aunt and uncle, and two cousins.  She is quickly put in the attic, does all the household chores and cooking, and is constantly mocked by everyone in the household.  While her cousins have a car they drive to school, wear brand new clothes, have new cellphones, get to leave school for lunch, and are allowed to have friends over; Indy walks to school/takes the bus, wears hand-me-downs, gets a cellphone when one of her cousins cracks the screen on hers, has to eat school lunch, and is required to clean and cook for her cousins party and is not allowed to attend.

            After a particularly nasty fight with her aunt and uncle, a terrified Indy finally leaves her aunt and uncle’s house to stay with a friend whose father is a therapist and certified to take in foster kids.  He explains she is being abused, but Indy at first does not believe it because her aunt and uncle never physically hurt her.  She eventually comes to understand that she was emotionally and financially abused and with the help of her new foster family she wins a court case against her aunt and uncle and does not have to go back to living with them.  It is also revealed that Indy’s mom had a $300,000 life insurance policy that Indy didn’t know about and has never seen a cent of.  This combined with the fact that they sold everything that belonged to her mother and constantly complained of her being a burden is what really gets Indy to understand that they are horrible people.

            What I appreciate the most about this version of the tale is that the abusive and toxic nature of the relationship between the Cinderella character and her guardians is actually acknowledged, by both the main character and people around her.  Indy actually removes herself from the situation and recognizes it was not okay, and she does this because her new friend doesn’t ignore his feeling that something is wrong and he tells someone with the ability to navigate the situation while keeping Indy safe.  This friend also doesn’t push the issue or say anything to Indy’s family, he just lets Indy know he’s there if she needs him.  So when she finally realizes she needs to leave she knows she can call him and he can get her the help she needs.

            In Conclusion, the modern versions of the Cinderella Tale are mostly spot on in a legal sense.  And even though each movie has a Prince Charming, it seems the real happily ever after is the revelation of the character’s own agency in being able to leave the situation.  In some movies this agency comes from the discovery of money and/or property that was left for them by the deceased parent; or just from learning that they have talent and self-worth and are able to survive on their own.  In A Cinderella Story and Not Cinderella’s Type, the character’s new found agency is also supported by the law which allows the Cinderella character to regain the financial security that was stolen from them.

            More importantly, the lesson that should be learned here is that the best way to prevent your child from becoming the main character in their own sad fairy tale is to plan ahead and not to assume that whatever adult takes over after your death is going to love and care for your child the way you did.  This is especially true if that adult does not have a legal connection to the child beyond just being married to the kid’s parent.  So if you’re a parent and you have a minor child or children you should have a will in place and if those children don’t have another biological or adoptive parent then the will should be designed to protect and care for them.  A lawyer that specializes in probate law and trusts is worth every penny if you can prevent your child from becoming a modern Cinderella.

            Thank you for listening.  This show is researched, written, and recorded by me, Céleste Young.  None of the legal advice or opinions expressed in this episode are intended as specific or individualized legal advice.  Please like, subscribe, rate, or review this podcast if you enjoyed it.  If you have any questions or comments, please e-mail them to Waitisthatlegal@gmail.com.  You can find the Podcast on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

Write a will and don’t marry someone that hates your kid.