In Massachusetts, adopted children are treated as descendants for inheritance purposes on the same footing as biological children. Words like “child,” “grandchild,” “issue,” “heir,” and “descendants” in a will or trust include an adopted person by default, and that default holds unless the document itself plainly says otherwise.
The Default Rule Under G.L. c. 210, § 8
The controlling statute is Massachusetts General Laws chapter 210, section 8. It provides that words of relationship in a trust, will, or other instrument include an adopted person “to the same extent as if born to the adopting parent or parents in lawful wedlock,” whether the adoption happened before or after the instrument was signed. The only escape from that presumption is language in the instrument that “plainly” shows a contrary intent.1General Court of Massachusetts. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 210 – Section 8
Silence favors inclusion. Vague drafting favors inclusion. A drafter who wants to exclude adopted descendants has to say so, unambiguously, in the four corners of the document.
Class Gifts Under the MUPC
For wills and trusts governed by the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code, section 2-705 sets the class-gift rule. Adopted individuals and their descendants are included in class gifts and other terms of relationship, tracking the intestate succession rules.2Mass.gov. Massachusetts General Laws c.190B Section 2-705
The MUPC adds one qualification worth flagging. If the person who created the trust or will is not the adopting parent, the adopted individual counts as the child of the adopting parent only if the adoption occurred while the adoptee was still a minor.2Mass.gov. Massachusetts General Laws c.190B Section 2-705 That qualifier matters for adult adoption, which is treated below.
Old Irrevocable Trusts and the Anderson Limit
The inclusive presumption is not a blanket rule that overrides every trust ever written. The Supreme Judicial Court drew a constitutional line in Anderson v. BNY Mellon, 463 Mass. 299 (2012).
The trust in Anderson was created by Anna Child Bird’s 1941 will, and became irrevocable when she died in 1942. At that time, section 8 excluded adopted children from words like “issue” unless the person who created the instrument was also the adopting parent. Decades later, Rachel Anderson, a biological great-grandchild, was receiving fifty percent of the trust income. Her two adopted brothers had been excluded under the original rule. If the 2009 amendment making the inclusive presumption apply to all instruments regardless of execution date were applied to this trust, they would come in as beneficiaries and Rachel’s share would drop to roughly sixteen percent.3Justia. Anderson v. BNY Mellon, N.A., 463 Mass. 299
The court held that applying the 2009 amendment retroactively to this trust was unconstitutional. Rachel held vested interests that predated the amendment, and stripping those interests violated substantive due process. The public interest in equalizing rights for adopted children was real, but the court found it served only weakly by reaching back nearly seventy years to a trust that had long since become irrevocable, while the harm to Rachel’s established interests was significant.4Justia. Anderson v. BNY Mellon, N.A.
What that means in practice: the modern inclusive rule does not automatically sweep aside vested interests in very old irrevocable trusts. Each pre-1958 instrument needs a fact-specific look at whether existing beneficiaries hold vested rights that retroactive application would impair. Where no such vested rights are in play, the modern presumption is more likely to apply.
Adult Adoption Is Treated Differently
Adult adoption is where the inclusion question gets contested. Under MUPC § 2-705(b), when someone other than the adopting parent created the trust, an adult adoptee is not automatically included in a class gift to “children” or “descendants.”2Mass.gov. Massachusetts General Laws c.190B Section 2-705
Courts also scrutinize motive. When an adult adoption looks designed primarily to add a beneficiary to an existing trust, courts tend to exclude the adoptee on the theory that including them would defeat the creator’s intent. The analysis turns on things like whether a parent-child bond existed before the adoption, whether the adoption came before or after the adoptee learned about the trust, and how much allowing the adoptee in would change the distribution the creator envisioned. A genuine, pre-existing parent-child relationship shifts the outcome toward inclusion.
Stepchildren Are Not Descendants Unless Adopted
A stepchild who has never been legally adopted has no automatic inheritance rights in Massachusetts. Under the MUPC’s intestacy provisions (M.G.L. c. 190B, §§ 2-102 and 2-103), property passes to a surviving spouse, biological children, adopted children, and other blood relatives. Stepchildren are not in that line. A stepparent who wants a stepchild to inherit has to either legally adopt the child or name the child in a will or trust.
Stepparent adoption carries a wrinkle. When the adopting stepparent is married to the child’s custodial biological parent, the child gains full inheritance rights from the stepparent while typically keeping the right to inherit from the noncustodial biological parent. If the adopting person is not married to the custodial parent, the adoption severs the child’s inheritance connection to the noncustodial biological parent.
What to Do About It
If you are drafting a will or trust and you want adopted descendants included, you can rely on the statutory default or add explicit language for clarity. If you want them excluded, the instrument has to contain unambiguous exclusionary language. Courts place the burden on the party arguing for exclusion, and that burden is met with clear text in the document, not outside speculation about the drafter’s wishes.
If you are an adopted person who believes you have been wrongly left out of a trust or estate, start by obtaining certified copies of the adoption decree or the post-adoption birth certificate. Those documents establish the legal parent-child relationship that triggers the statutory presumption. Where eligibility as a descendant is disputed, the probate court can compel production of adoption records to resolve the question.