Retirement provision and children's education in financing?

I didn't want to start a discussion about parenting or about right and wrong when it comes to financing studies. For me, the focus is more on the question of what exactly is being done or not done for it. I have understanding for all views.

Such discussions just arise and that’s not a bad thing. If you assume that every expressed opinion reflects an experience and you try to understand it, that can be helpful for everyone. The problem is rather that it repeatedly drifts into black-and-white thinking, into the good and the bad. Of course, the young person can and may claim their legally regulated rights, and parents can just as well spend their money instead of bequeathing it, but what kind of stubborn "rightness" is that on both sides?? Then something was done wrong beforehand! When I read something here about "war stories from grandpa," I can only grin and regret that the important experiences and insights for both grandpa and child are probably missing together. Even at an advanced age, one would know that one changes one’s outlook on life again and again during its course and it can’t hurt to listen to an older person as well. To want to set oneself apart from that and to ridicule their experience/view ultimately only says something about one’s own shortcomings. The older person has experienced more, yet age alone is not a qualification. However, it would be downright foolish to arrogantly and categorically ignore the lived experiences of older people and not even think about them openly and without preconceptions. One is grown-up when one does something even though one's parents say otherwise; that’s what I recently read something nice about. I often hear from parents who cannot or could not live their lives as they see others do because of their adult children (“unfortunately we can’t, our child is studying…”). In my environment, there are parents who told me long ago that they cannot do many things because of the children. Today the children are over 30 and the statements are the same; the children (30+) roll their eyes when the parents say such things. It’s like the statement: “When I am retired, but then…” Then — then nothing happens if you haven’t lived that way before. My children encourage us or are happy when we do something new in life; they would rather be unsettled and burdened with guilt if we did not shape our lives nicely because of them. Did I do something wrong now?

There where general information about maintenance obligation is also stated. And that goes until the end of the initial training. Disinheriting is just as much your good right as it is the child’s right to assert the maintenance claim. For students, the Bafög office can even kindly take over this.

Of course, such things are codified, as almost everything is with us, which I basically find good. But the moment when parents or children (young adults) have to rely on that, the child is already in the well long ago. Both sides have rights and duties; that is how social coexistence is. Nature has built into us humans, however, that we support each other mutually in the family — mutually and mostly also alternately and in different ways, depending on need. Nowhere does it say anything about self-denial or submission, on either side.

Is clear. Where does it say that? And if it were so, I would disinherit my child if he comes at me with a lawyer

For example, the Building Code. And case law. You will come off worse.

Fortunately, you cannot disinherit your child.

Yes, that is exactly what you are working for. The financing of your children's education takes priority over the financing of your own home.
That is how the laws are in Germany.

I am working for that TOO. And my child is ALSO working so that one day they can support me if needed. In a welfare state, it is certainly not regulated so that only one side is supported, so obligations on both sides should definitely be named. My own home was never MY home, but always OUR house.

For example, the Building Code. And case law. You will come off worse.
Fortunately, you cannot disinherit your child.

As soon as one realizes that one is mutually obligated or better, regards this as a mutual matter of course, such sharp discussions become unnecessary.
The daughter sues the parents successfully and they give her money during their lifetime to the church or the casino. What drastic scenarios, but both are possible and lawful.
What a lucky guy I am as a recognized "raven father" who could not and would not have wanted to support his children generously if I did not know such thoughts and problems in our coexistence.
But I would have only not wanted that because I wanted to help my children quickly have their own experiences and adventures and be proud of what they have achieved themselves. Creating something for oneself always results in higher self-confidence and a feeling of satisfaction, just as describes it nicely and very aptly.

In the welfare state, it is certainly not regulated in such a way that only one side is supported, so the obligations on both sides should be named.

The legal obligation of a child only exists from an annual gross income of 100k€ if one wants to name it. Initially, there is indeed only the one-sided obligation from the parents to the children.
That's just how it is.
In an ideal world, parents of course grant their children the maintenance they are entitled to.
Unfortunately, there are enough parents who do not fulfill their duties and put their children in the unfortunate situation of having to claim maintenance. But that cannot be blamed on the children, only on the parents.

Therefore, any maintenance obligations should of course be taken into account when financing a house. Otherwise, the house might have to be sold— and nobody wants that.

My parents were the kind who gave up vacation and non-essential renovations on the house for several years in order to largely finance our studies. When relatives once again complained that my parents were spoiling the children and that they themselves had just bought a new motorhome, my father simply replied dryly that his children regularly and gladly come to visit. After that, it was never an issue again.
My brothers take care of our parents a lot today, the relatives see theirs every two years at Christmas. That is also okay because both sides are fine with it. Families are different. Some are very close, some live more distantly, but that is not a sign of a lack of love.
However, in my opinion, it is good to think about the question of what we want to forgo for the children’s education.

The topic of child support (studies) is hotly debated. However, there are many things that can reduce the support. For example, a BAFöG entitlement is offset against the maintenance claim. Living with the parents is also taken into account. And so on.

But apart from that, if you have come this far, you are no longer a functioning family...