English translation of the author’s Chinese review. Statutory quotations are translated for this article; the Chinese original remains the reference text.
What parents hope to leave behind is property, but also a measure of certainty: after they step back, someone will still be there to take charge of their child’s daily life.
When parents of a child with special needs seek advice on wills, guardianship or trusts, their greatest concern is often straightforward: if one day I can no longer care for my child, who will take over? That inability may arise at the end of life—or earlier. A hospital admission, an illness or a gradual decline in cognitive ability can suddenly deprive a household of the support that has sustained it for years. Yet the child still needs meals, medical care, a home and companionship; someone who understands how they communicate; and someone to manage the large and small matters of daily life.
How can the estate parents leave behind be placed into a trust? What risks arise during the transition before that happens, and who should take responsibility? On 30 September 2026, Mingyue Gao brought together professionals from notarisation, trusts, guardianship organisations, social services, philanthropy and end-of-life services for an in-person discussion on “How Can an Estate Be Placed into a Trust?” Scheduled for three hours, the event continued for more than four.
The gathering grew out of a question Mingyue has repeatedly encountered in more than twenty years of family law practice: a will can be written, guardianship arranged and a trust established, but whether these arrangements can work together within the same family and along the same timeline still requires careful examination.
Notary Li Chenyang summarised the first half of the discussion, and Notary Ruan Xiao the second. Their contributions approached the question from different angles. Li focused on using existing legal tools to deliver property into a trust; Ruan went further, asking whether a family truly needs a trust, whether the arrangement can function and how it can be sustained once it begins operating.
In Mingyue’s view, the discussion’s most important achievement was to turn “how to place an estate into a trust” from a question posed by families into a set of legal and implementation issues that service providers must address together. Parents leave wishes that someone must implement; an estate must be identified and administered, then properly delivered; a trust must be ready to receive it; and the property must ultimately be converted into practical support that the child actually receives.
Starting with parents’ needs and the difficulties encountered in practice, Mingyue sets out below the participants’ insights, examines the underlying legal issues and considers how existing approaches might be improved.
Why does entrusting a child’s future remain so uncertain?
1. Parents need arrangements for daily life that can continue to function
Ling Yunjian, Chair of Aituofu, gave the discussion a clear foundation in families’ needs. From parents’ perspective, she described future security for a child in terms of “people, money and place”: who will provide care, how money will be used and where the child will live. Parents’ anxiety about what happens after they die centres on all three. Property does not necessarily mean there is a suitable caregiver; a caregiver may lack authority to manage medical, financial and housing matters; and a place to live may not provide services suited to the child. Even arrangements made today do not guarantee that the people and institutions involved can honour their promises ten or twenty years from now. Ling’s concerns were firmly grounded in reality.
As parents work through legal arrangements, further questions emerge:
1. In a divorced family, one parent may wish a trusted person to take over care, while the other may later object or challenge that choice.
2. How should a parent’s testamentary guardianship arrangements connect with the person authorised to issue instructions to the trust?
3. If one parent dies and the surviving parent remarries, will property originally intended for the child still be used for its original purpose?
4. How should arrangements differ depending on whether the child is a minor or an adult?
…
Behind these questions lies the interweaving of family relationships and legal relationships.
As a family lawyer, Mingyue has seen relationships form and fall apart. Past trust between relatives does not guarantee agreement once property and care become issues. Someone willing to take responsibility today may later be unable to continue because of illness, age, relocation or changes in their own family. Planning therefore cannot stop at “they have promised to care for the child.” It must specify what that person is responsible for, what powers they have, how their performance will be supervised and who will replace them if they cannot continue. While parents are present, much of this work need not be itemised. They know how their child expresses discomfort, understand the child’s medical history, judge which services are suitable and coordinate costs, transport, housing and relatives. These tasks are embedded in daily family life, rarely given separate names and seldom costed.
When parents step back, their functions are divided up, but every task still needs someone to perform it. A successor may not know the child and may not hold all the powers needed for guardianship, property management and payment decisions. How can responsibilities once concentrated in a parent be redistributed into an arrangement that works collectively? Experience shows that a will, a sum of trust money or a guardian alone will struggle to fulfil the entire undertaking.
Lin Yi, representing the AIA Shangxi Legeng Family, the salon’s refreshment-break sponsor, observed that serving a family well over the long term requires expertise spanning notarisation, law, trusts, insurance and philanthropy. That calls for a closely coordinated team with complementary skills. The salon’s diverse, cross-disciplinary participants offered something akin to a joint consultation on these difficult succession issues—an approach capable of breaking down institutional barriers and identifying effective responses.
2. Care can break down before succession begins
Discussion of placing an estate into a trust often takes death as its starting point. For older parents and families with special needs, however, the period when the principal caregiver is still alive but can no longer perform their role also requires systematic planning.
Ding Yuxiang, head of Shanghai Trust’s Xinrui Family Office, explained that arrangements for older people, people with disabilities and other families with special needs are not a single problem but a system of interdependent tasks: who protects a person after loss of capacity, who succeeds to guardianship of relatives, who proposes and approves expenses, how the trust makes payments and who supplies care. In the “Mr Zhang” case, described as Shanghai’s first elderly-care service trust, arrangements were made while he could still express his wishes. Individuals, professional organisations and community resources were brought together to connect guardianship documents with a special needs trust, including the alignment of testamentary guardianship priorities with the roles of trust participants.
Ding also stressed that naming successors in documents is only a beginning. Activation is the real test: whether the next person is willing to accept, when the previous person becomes unable to act and whether institutions accept the supporting evidence all determine whether the arrangement can operate.
The significance extends beyond that individual case. At an institutional level, Shanghai Trust helped Huangpu District develop a standardised “three databases and one map” service system, providing practical groundwork for Shanghai’s elderly-care trust pilot policy. In a separate example of collaboration, the company completed an end-to-end testamentary trust registration process, linking “will verification—notarial deposit—trust coordination.” A four-party agreement clarified the route and authority for delivering property into a trust after death, completing the chain of implementation. Experience across these different settings led to trusts designed to receive additional assets under a will, offering a more complete institutional tool for handing over responsibilities after death.
Liu Lulu of Hwabao Trust emphasised that preparation is essential. Whether a family trust uses an institutional trustee or a civil trust uses an individual trustee, arrangements should be made as early as possible—as a responsibility both to oneself and to the next generation. Clients’ legal advisers should play an active role, explain what trusts are and what they do, and participate in trust planning and planning across the client’s life. Mingyue strongly agrees. Even where acceptance is limited and understanding takes time, parents should feel a sense of urgency. Planning should begin early and follow a timeline: how arrangements work while one can decide; how support is obtained as capacity declines; who takes over when one can no longer act; and how estate administration and trust payments continue after death. Designing only post-death succession can leave out the period when a family most needs help. Notary Li Chenyang’s repeated emphasis on “care for yourself before caring for others” conveys the same point.
At an event jointly organised by the Shanghai Adream Charitable Foundation and Hwabao Trust, Mingyue arrived at an important insight: try establishing a modestly funded trust during life, then add the larger estate after death. Build the system, choose the trustee and test the rules while alive. Identify and correct problems during life, so that death brings only the final handover. What a person truly hopes to leave may never have been merely money. More importantly, the money should continue to create value in the way that person believes in after they have left the world. If that is achieved, what remains is not simply an estate but a system capable of continuing beyond death. That may be the most promising future of bringing wills, trusts and philanthropy together.
3. Practical difficulties concentrate at the handover—and handovers take time
In his concluding remarks for the second half, Notary Ruan Xiao placed the will, death, estate administration, confirmation of rights, delivery of property, establishment of the trust and ongoing payments on one timeline. Their precise order may vary by structure, but his reminder matters: creating documents, transferring property and operating services are different things.
Even if parents write that their property is to fund lifelong care for their child, arrangements must still establish who has authority to implement the wishes, what property the trust will accept, when funds become available and who handles failures in service. The gap before delivery is particularly easy to overlook: parents may no longer be able to issue payment instructions, while the conditions for a successor’s authority have not yet been proved; or parents may have died and an estate property remains unsold, while the child’s care bill for next month is already due.
The One Thousand and One Nights Charitable Trust illustrates the time implementation can take. Approximately one year passed between the testator Ms Wu’s death in August 2025 and completion of the property transaction and delivery of funds in August 2026. Delivery was ultimately achieved, but for a child who needs daily care, life cannot wait for the paperwork to be finished.
Families therefore need to check how long existing liquid funds will last, who can request emergency expenses and what lawful interim arrangements are available if delivery is delayed. Providing some funds during life may reduce a future gap, but parents’ own retirement, medical and housing needs must also be protected. Yuan Lili of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences further examined obstacles to coordinating different forms of guardianship. Signing agreements, activating guardianship and executing wills require cooperation among individuals, families and extended families, neighbourhood and village committees, notarial offices, civil affairs departments, trust companies, insurers, elderly-care or special-needs care providers and charities. At every stage, someone must be willing to coordinate and move this chain of tasks forward. Families fear that each institution will handle only its own part, leaving the whole arrangement stuck or unsupported. After a person with full civil capacity chooses trusted institutions and signs a series of agreements, who can ensure their effective implementation until every person under guardianship reaches the end of life? Who connects the institutions? Can a supervisor fulfil that mission, and what kind of institution or individual is suited to it? Building an ecosystem of trusted entrustment among government, businesses, social organisations—including charities—and families is therefore essential.
How can an estate enter a trust? Legal obstacles and practical breakthroughs
1. Decide whether a trust is needed before identifying the real legal obstacles
The Civil Code permits individuals to establish testamentary trusts in accordance with law, providing a legal basis for arrangements after death. Yet for any particular family, the first question is whether a trust is suitable for the problem. Notary Ruan Xiao placed this assessment before the question of how to transfer assets. One should first ask whether to do so and whether it is worthwhile. This is not an optional consideration.
If a family simply wishes to transfer property to someone outright, the assets are straightforward and relationships stable, a will or other arrangement may already achieve the main purpose. A trust adds establishment, delivery, management and communication costs. It may offer clearer structural value where beneficiaries need long-term support, cannot appropriately manage substantial property or where the family wants staged distributions and continuing payment of expenses. Notary Li Yunhong’s experience also suggests that, for many families, a civil trust with an individual trustee—someone already known and trusted—can be an alternative to trusting an unfamiliar trust company. Family lawyers should help clients compare these tools, understand the time, financial and communication costs, and confirm that the person truly understands the plan. Some apparently comprehensive provisions simply pile on elements the client cannot understand and participants cannot implement. Complexity is not the same as quality.
Ruan identified four points where implementation can break down: the trustee’s commitment, identification of the property, registration and taxes, and the gap before delivery. They offer a way to test a plan:
1. Is the nominated trustee willing and able to accept?
2. Can the estate be identified, and are ownership and the scope of disposable property clear?
3. How will particular assets be transferred, and what will it cost?
4. Who will hold and supervise the property before delivery is complete?
These questions echo Liu Lulu’s earlier appeal: prepare in advance, plan early and discuss difficulties at the design stage, rather than leaving them all for the person who must implement the arrangements after death.
2. A power of attorney that continues after death
Article 174 of the Civil Code provides for what the article calls a “power of attorney that continues after death.” Where the authorisation expressly states that the agency ends only when the entrusted matter is completed, the agent can continue to carry out the principal’s wishes—for example, selling a home after death and placing the proceeds into a trust.
Statutory reference · Civil Code
Article 174. After the death of a principal, acts performed by an authorised agent remain valid in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The agent neither knew nor ought to have known of the principal’s death;
(2) The principal’s heirs acknowledge the acts;
(3) The authorisation expressly provides that the agency ends upon completion of the entrusted matter;
(4) The acts began before the principal’s death and the agency continues in the interests of the principal’s heirs.
Where a legal person or unincorporated organisation acting as principal terminates, the preceding paragraph applies by reference.
As recorded in the case of Du Yingrong and Lu Suying reported by Shanghai’s civil affairs authorities, the couple authorised a foundation to sell their property after their deaths and donate the proceeds, together with other estate assets, to help children from low-income families with congenital heart disease. This lifetime authorisation to dispose of real estate for charitable purposes was among Shanghai’s leading examples. If the home can eventually be sold smoothly, it will provide a vivid application of Article 174. The difficulty is that if Shanghai’s property registration authorities remain overly cautious and those implementing the law are reluctant to move forward, the case may still follow the old, mistaken route of first accepting the testamentary gift and then selling the home. Taxes approaching seventy per cent would substantially reduce the amount left for charity.
By comparison, the achievement of the One Thousand and One Nights Charitable Trust in Hainan was particularly hard won. Acting as estate administrator, the Shanghai Adream Charitable Foundation successfully sold the estate property using a notarised power of attorney continuing after death, and the proceeds were then transferred into the charitable trust. What entered the trust was cash rather than real estate.
Despite repeated obstacles in Shanghai, Notary Li Chenyang remained measured. In his view, continuing agency after death must be controlled, protected against misuse and limited to charitable purposes. Safeguards include notarisation during life, retention of the original authorisation by the notarial office, release for use only after verification of the will, and payment of sale proceeds into a supervised notarial deposit account. Notary Ruan Xiao likewise urged caution: an authorisation that makes transactions considerably easier can be misused, and the broader the powers, the clearer the safeguards must be. Both recommended considering legal authority, the destination of funds and supervision throughout the process together, as part of a coordinated plan.
3. From private arrangements to public authority: the role of notarial institutions
Placing an estate into a trust requires the involvement of public authority. This includes notarial offices and courts, as well as planning and land authorities, tax authorities and civil affairs departments. The Shanghai case of Du Yingrong and Lu Suying shows why something that sounds simple can be so difficult in practice: the chain between public authorities has not been connected.
As Notary Li Chenyang put it, we must recognise the distance between having authority in law and having that authority accepted by the institution processing a transaction. Parents want to make a valid will; Li emphasised that a will taking effect is not the same as its being valid. He asked a deeper question: the Civil Code gives priority to the last will, but after the testator’s death, who verifies its validity and confirms that it is the last valid will? In many matters with no opposing interests or dispute, it is a notarial office. When an estate administrator wants to distribute assets or place them into a trust, who confirms that administrator’s status? In the great majority of succession matters, this too is confirmed by a notarial office. The Notarisation Law defines notarial institutions as certifying bodies that independently exercise notarial functions according to law and bear civil liability. A central function is to establish a party’s intentions, facts, identity and related legal acts in a notarial certificate—an official document recognised by other institutions. Public descriptions often call notarial offices legal service providers; the article characterises their role more specifically as judicial in nature, providing judicial services on behalf of the state to assist with and intervene in private affairs.
One emerging practical consensus is to establish a trust during life and add estate assets under a will after death. Northern Trust’s Sanyu Charitable Trust and the Hongying Educational Assistance Charitable Trust, in which Mingyue participated, both reflect this approach. In the Hongying arrangement, a charitable trust was created during life, followed by a supplementary trust agreement and a four-party cooperation agreement for delivery of testamentary trust property. These connected the work of the settlor, trust company, notarial institution and executor in advance, clarifying the recipient, implementation responsibilities and supervision, and aligning the will’s directions with the trust’s internal rules.
Yet the future estate still has to be identified, administered and delivered. The existence of a trust does not make undelivered property trust property; the trustee, trust term and form of the assets may also change. In the Ke Qian Charitable Trust, the executor—the China Welfare Institute Kindergarten—played an important role from Ke Qian’s death to the property genuinely entering the trust: registration in the trustee’s name, registration as trust property and filing of the charitable trust. But the notarial office guiding the process behind the executor deserves particular credit. In Mingyue’s view, the case demonstrates how notarial institutions connect a person’s last wishes with practical implementation. From verifying the will and proving the administrator’s identity and acquisition of estate rights, to coordinating property transfers, charitable trust filing and trust-property annotations, the contribution went beyond issuing certificates. The office served as a certifier of legal facts, a source of professional support for complex implementation and a driver of cross-departmental cooperation. If the will pointed goodwill in the right direction, the notarial office helped lay the road to its destination, turning a written undertaking into an arrangement capable of registration, management and sustained operation.
4. Legal recognition must be followed by sustained performance
Ruan’s observation that property must not only “get into” a trust but also “stay within a workable arrangement” adds an important dimension. Referring to the first testamentary trust litigation case, he asked whether property could be assembled, whether the trustees were suitable, whether supervision existed and how disputes would be handled. Judicial review and subsequent implementation disputes led to a regrettable outcome, showing the distance between legal recognition and long-term operation. This does not establish that testamentary trusts are unsuitable for family succession, but it highlights tensions between parents’ arrangements and adult children’s freedom to use property. Elderly trustees, distance, lack of experience and persistent conflict with beneficiaries can all undermine implementation. Ruan also offered an exploratory observation: some charitable purposes and needs of families in which older parents support children with disabilities may more readily produce clear objectives and cooperation, whereas complex succession in families with multiple children may generate more opposition. Persistent beneficiary resistance can make even a valid arrangement costly to run. Designers should therefore understand future participants’ views as far as possible and prepare for resolving disagreement, making adjustments and exiting the arrangement.
As Notary Shao Hui noted, Article 29 of the Ministry of Justice’s Rules on Notarised Deposits, effective since 1995, provides an institutional safeguard for placing estates into trusts. Whoever acts as administrator, where trustee acceptance, document review and account opening remain incomplete, the article regards a notarised deposit as the most secure and reliable course. Assets can then be transferred into the trust once title, estate debts, trustee acceptance and the other conditions have been addressed.
Statutory reference · Rules on Notarised Deposits (Ministry of Justice Order No. 38)
Article 29. Where a judicial or administrative authority applies for a notarised deposit in performing its official duties, these Rules apply by reference.
Where a guardian or estate administrator requests deposit of property under their guardianship or administration to protect the interests of a person under guardianship or an heir, these Rules apply by reference.
Where a testator or donor requests deposit of property disposed of under a will or given as a gift to protect the interests of a testamentary beneficiary or a minor recipient, these Rules apply by reference.
A case shared by Fei Chao, Chair of Jinshan Guardianship, showed how, in testamentary trust practice involving a civil trust, Jinshan acted as executor and used a notarial office’s deposit service to fulfil a complex testamentary charitable gift, donating the estate to families who had lost their only child in the locality where the testator’s household registration was held. As Li Chenyang observed, the notarial office in that process performed the role of trustee of a public judicial trust.
Shao Hui urged caution in official publicity. Whether the option is a notarised deposit, a trust or something else, the choice of how to manage funds should remain with the people who need the service, avoiding the risk that excessive promotion creates an expectation of official guarantees. Existing experience suggests that families with relatively modest assets may not need a complex trust structure. A voluntary guardianship agreement, a clause authorising the guardian to sell the home, and placement of sale proceeds into a notarial deposit account invested in term deposits may meet most needs. Where a family sufficiently trusts the trust company and seeks asset growth—accepting that principal is not guaranteed—some property may also move from the deposit account into a trust account, as in Nanjing’s Shicheng Shanhu trust case.
5. Can a notarial office act as an estate administrator?
For Zuo Junchao of Jianyuan Trust, whether notarial offices, trust companies or other institutions should act as estate administrators turns on whether returns and risks are aligned. Institutions currently face at least three challenges: the legal basis and practical route for receiving and managing estate assets remain incomplete, whether they participate as testamentary trustees or administrators; tax and fee costs remain high; and estates contain both financial and non-financial assets, making standardised administration difficult. An institution may face inability to transfer title, litigation, delayed disposal and difficult asset custody. Mishandling can produce losses and reputational risk. From the client’s perspective, significant taxes and fees at receipt, holding and disposal also affect willingness to appoint an institution.
In practical cases presented by Hwabao Trust and Kunlun Trust, notarial offices were assigned estate administration functions, connecting testamentary arrangements with delivery of trust property. The basic route was for the person to name the notarial office as executor during life, with estate administration responsibilities arising under law when succession begins. Participants differed on this role. Some notaries stressed careful assessment of family relationships, title and potential disputes before accepting an engagement; others considered that a notarial office’s strengths were better suited to supervising a trust than directly executing a will.
Mingyue questioned the potential conflicts when the same institution both provides notarial certification and executes the will. An institution should not combine the roles of certifier, implementer and evaluator of its own performance in one matter without independent checks. For example:
1. If the same office notarises the will and accepts appointment as executor, could its interest in defending the quality of its certification and its reputation affect its judgment when the will is challenged?
2. After becoming administrator, would the office also notarise its own status, fees, disposal of assets or results of administration?
3. If defects in the original notarisation emerge during administration, would it have sufficient incentive to disclose and correct them promptly?
4. Could fees linked to the duration of administration, estate value or a particular partner institution affect independence?
Mingyue considers notarial institutions better suited to certification and supporting services—while a lawyer or another person administers the estate, the office assists with identity, documents, preservation of evidence and deposits—and to supervisory functions, overseeing an estate or trust managed by another party under agreed arrangements. This is preferable to directly undertaking estate administration through appointment or a status arising by operation of law.
From individual experiments to long-term security: what remains to be done?
1. In an era of administrative “window guidance,” do not rush to apply templates
How can an estate be placed into a trust, and how can legal tools move from paper into practice? Many steps currently depend on administrative guidance at service counters. Rights of residence face difficulties similar to powers of attorney continuing after death. Property registration counters still restrict persons eligible for registered residence rights to close relatives, a limitation for which the article identifies no legal basis. Challenging such guidance, however, requires determination and willingness to pursue administrative reconsideration or litigation. That is not easy. Where registries fear that some residence rights may serve unlawful purposes, could an additional filter be introduced—for example, notarisation of residence-right agreements as required in civil-law jurisdictions such as Germany and France? Necessary judicial costs cannot be dispensed with where vulnerable people’s personal safety is at stake.
Ruan noted in his concluding remarks that the eight cases in the meeting materials show different routes, indicating that practice is not yet mature enough for settled conclusions. Legal professionals should not rush to find a single answer. At the same time, no one role can perform every task. These points belong together. Family circumstances call for individual judgment, and professional cooperation should begin early, not after documents are completed and someone finally asks whether the implementing institution will accept them. Lawyers should analyse relationships, actual needs and rights-related risks; trust institutions should specify acceptance conditions and management procedures; notarial offices can contribute evidence, procedure and supervision. Tax, asset disposal and care require their respective specialists.
Li Yunhong suggested that notarial offices and law firms could cooperate, including jointly administering estates. Responsibilities could be divided, with the law firm handling disputes and litigation. Ruan’s suggestion that notarial institutions may be better placed as supervisors in some structures also prompts scrutiny of role conflicts. Roles may vary, but responsibilities must be clear: who files documents, verifies title, holds funds, follows up unfinished matters, receives notice of delay and activates a fallback route. The coordinator need not bear all responsibility but should track overall progress and identify tasks without an owner. Families also need a first point of contact when problems arise. Succession among personnel must not be overlooked. Long-term support may outlast the tenures of managers, lawyers, notaries and caregivers. Asset inventories, records of the child’s needs, key decisions and the grounds for action must be understandable and usable by successors. Ruan’s proposal to draw reusable experience from individual cases is practical: begin with relatively stable document lists, verification methods, delivery processes and reporting rules, then adapt them to each family rather than promising a universal plan from the outset.
2. Reasonable fees determine whether someone can sustain long-term responsibility
Ruan specifically stressed that, outside purely charitable cases, reasonable fees are consideration for expertise and responsibility. This deserves serious attention. Investigating estates, disposing of assets, responding to emergencies, coordinating guardianship and ongoing supervision all cost money. Expecting long-term responsibility while assuming the service should be free may ultimately undermine its stability. Charitable effort can launch some cases but cannot automatically sustain years of performance. Families should understand the distinction between one-off and continuing fees, whether emergencies cost extra, what happens if assets are insufficient and whether handover support exists when an institution exits. Families in difficulty need charitable and public support, and institutions can explore cost-sharing. Reasonable charges and inclusive access are not incompatible; the questions are who bears responsibility and cost, and how these are disclosed. Nor must every family use a trust. For families for whom a trust is unsuitable or unaffordable, professionals should still find arrangements addressing their principal needs. That is the practical meaning of choosing the right tool.
3. Beyond managing assets, someone must keep paying attention to the child’s life
Feng Bin of Kunlun Trust clarified some trust-company functions in his materials: custody of accounts, payments as agreed and clear records; wills, guardianship, care and project implementation fall to their respective participants. Clear boundaries support cooperation. Yet once money is paid, someone must still verify whether services occurred and were appropriate. An invoice proves a charge, and a contract records an agreement. Whether the child is adapting, whether life has improved and how duplicate charges or inadequate service are addressed require knowledge of the real situation. Ding Yuxiang proposed service databases, credential checks and dynamic assessments to help select and manage providers. Li Chenyang questioned whether commercial institutions should undertake that work. The difference deserves to be preserved. Specific responsibilities depend on law, contract and the actual task, but a family’s overall protection requires someone explicitly responsible for checking services.
Aituofu’s mutual support and visiting work among parents offers another source of support: people who know the child, remain in contact and notice changes that accounts cannot show. This is valuable, but it too requires stable personnel, records and clear boundaries of responsibility. Identifying needs, making lawful decisions, trustee payments, service delivery and subsequent supervision should form a feedback loop. If something is wrong, someone must have authority to demand an explanation and ensure action. The child must remain a rights-holder throughout. Parents’ knowledge of communication methods, medical history and preferences is vital preparation, but children grow and circumstances change. Successors must be able to adapt while preserving essential safeguards. The Civil Code requires guardians of adults to respect the person’s genuine wishes to the greatest possible extent and support civil legal acts suited to that person’s circumstances. Long-term arrangements should follow that direction. Needing support does not mean a child cannot choose anything. Expression may require help and understanding may take time; the person’s views still deserve serious attention.
The purposes of philanthropy and special-needs support must also remain distinct. Ke Qian and Ms Wu wished to support education and charity; parents of children with special needs primarily seek security for their own children. Procedural experience can be shared, but beneficiary purposes must not be conflated. Whether remaining property should go to charity depends on the family’s wishes, lawful rights and specific arrangements; it should not be a default condition. Parents’ use of private assets to improve support should not cause public support to withdraw. Families without assets need care, and families with assets still need accessible services, stable personnel and reliable supervision. Shi Hui’s discussion of life services also reminds us that, after parents die, children face farewell, emotional change and rebuilding daily life. Who accompanies the child, helps them understand and restores familiar routines deserves advance thought. Long-term protection must ultimately reach these concrete aspects of life.
Whether the undertaking is fulfilled can only be tested after parents step back
Ruan’s closing call to “return to common sense and fly close to the ground” was, in my view, an apt reminder for the whole discussion. Trusts can supplement traditional tools, but their value must be demonstrated in implementation. Li Chenyang’s practical routes showed how progress can be made; Ruan’s synthesis asks us to keep testing suitability, the capacity to take over and sustainability.
As a family lawyer, Mingyue asks whether these arrangements protect people in a particular family: something can be signed today, but can it be activated later? Once activated, will anyone carry it out? When people, relationships and needs change, can it continue to function?
The certainty parents hope to leave must be tested over time. When they can no longer direct daily life, will someone know what their child needs, make necessary decisions lawfully, ensure timely payment, deliver actual services and continue to pay attention to how the child is living?
Existing efforts are beginning to provide answers. Unresolved issues must be recorded accurately and pursued further.
Only when parents have stepped back and their child can still live with appropriate support, safety, dignity and as much choice as possible does this undertaking truly approach fulfilment.