Who is part of the family that the family office serves? Chris Dickson, senior manager of Family Office for RSM US LLP, explains why this is an important — and surprisingly complex — question:
Why should family offices define who is ‘family’?
Defining family is important because it sets the foundation for who the family office is intended to support.
In many cases, the family office supports more individuals than those formally named in ownership documents or trust agreements. For example, it may provide philanthropic support, financial reporting or tax planning assistance to married-in spouses — even if they don’t individually have a direct ownership interest or beneficial stake in the family’s assets.
Single family offices typically operate under certain regulatory exemptions that require them to serve only family members as defined in those rules. So it’s important to be thoughtful and consistent about who is included, in what capacity and how that aligns with both the family’s intent and the office’s structure.
Defining who is considered part of the family can also be empowering. It signals who has a voice, who holds responsibilities and who may participate in decision-making or legacy planning. These decisions can carry emotional weight — particularly when individuals such as spouses play meaningful roles within the nuclear family but are excluded from broader engagement. Clarity and intentionality around inclusion can help avoid misunderstandings and prevent unintended tension.
It’s not just about legal ownership or decision-making authority — it’s about being clear on who the office is there to support and how they connect back to the assets and entities it oversees.
How have ideas about this changed over time?
Historically, some governing agreements have used terms like ‘bloodline descendants’ or ‘heirs’ without clearly defining who is included. While those terms may have reflected the intent at the time, they can create ambiguity today — particularly around children born through adoption, surrogacy or other modern family-building methods.
As families have evolved, many have taken steps to ensure their documents reflect a more inclusive view of family. Looking ahead, families should work with their attorneys to regularly review these governing agreements and confirm the language clearly aligns with their intent — minimizing ambiguity and ensuring there’s no uncertainty about who is considered part of the family. That recognition should align not only with legal rights, but also with how the family grants voice, responsibility and participation — because including someone in governance without recognition, or recognizing someone in legal documents without engagement, can lead to both tension and disruption.
What are some considerations about how to include married-in family members?
From an ownership perspective, it ultimately comes down to the governing documents and whether the family has put prenuptial agreements or other asset protection strategies in place.
That said, married-in family members often bring valuable skill sets, perspectives and professional experience of their own. I’ve seen families take different approaches when it comes to involvement in structures like investment committees. In some cases, participation is limited to individuals with a beneficial interest in the assets or to professional staff hired by the family. In others, families have chosen to include spouses or partners — particularly when they bring relevant expertise, such as experience in the investment industry or exposure to wealth management through their own families.
A smooth and thoughtful onboarding experience can go a long way in helping married-in family members feel connected to the family enterprise — and can influence how they think about raising the next generation and passing on those same values.
Ideally, inclusion is considered before a spouse enters the picture, so that expectations are clear from the outset. But inclusion isn’t just about bringing them in — it’s about supporting their success. That may involve thoughtful communication, employment policies and clarity around their role in family matters.
Married-in family members often straddle two worlds: they may feel pressure to fit into the family dynamic while also being perceived differently by employees, advisors or even other relatives. That tension — being seen both as family and not quite family — can lead to challenges if not acknowledged and supported with intention.
What are some of the nuances involved in deciding who is a family member in a specific situation?
These questions are not just about whether or not someone is considered family in relation to ownership or trust assets. They’re also about participation in the family office itself, either as an employee, in a governance role or as a recipient of certain services.
It’s all about participation and engagement. You might have future generations that are beneficiaries of a trust, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re in a decision-making capacity with respect to that trust — nor more broadly within the family office. At the same time, they might also be getting some broader services from the family office.
It also comes down to the services the family office provides. Is G2 going to set up their own foundation, for example, and will that foundation be in their name and their partner’s? If so, is the family office going to support the administration of that foundation or support the investment strategy of the foundation?
In those cases, it’s important to be clear on how that support aligns with the office’s purpose and structure. The governance of the foundation will dictate how those assets are managed, but the family office still needs to consider how its support relates to the broader family enterprise — and whether those individuals fall within the scope of who the office is set up to serve.