An Abu Dhabi mother’s proposal to include ChatGPT in her will has raised an unusual question for family law: can a parent preserve guidance on a child’s upbringing after death by asking a future guardian to consult artificial intelligence?
The proposal, reported on October 12, 2026, involves a seven-page bilingual draft known as the “Living Wishes Protocol”, prepared by Expatriate Law. It seeks to preserve the mother’s values and parenting philosophy in a form that could help guide decisions about her son’s education, healthcare, residence, religious upbringing and family relationships after her death.
The arrangement would not appoint ChatGPT as a guardian or give it independent decision-making powers. Instead, the proposed protocol would ask the people caring for the child to consult the system when making important decisions, while leaving responsibility with the human guardian.
The distinction is fundamental. The legal question is not whether a will can mention an AI service, but whether a court would recognise an obligation to consult it and, if so, what legal effect that obligation would have.
As of October 29, the draft had not been registered or approved by the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department. Its validity must therefore be considered as an unresolved legal question, rather than an established precedent.
A Will Cannot Override the Law
The first issue is whether instructions about a child’s upbringing can acquire legal force simply because they appear in a will.
Abu Dhabi has a civil-wills framework under Law No. 14 of 2021, as amended, for people governed by its provisions. Registration and formal approval are important to recognition under that framework. However, the ability to make a will does not mean every provision concerning a child’s future care will automatically be enforceable.
A will may record parental preferences, nominate a person to care for a child where the applicable law permits it, and provide information intended to help future carers. But decisions concerning guardianship, personal welfare and the exercise of parental authority remain subject to the relevant legal rules and judicial oversight.
The position may also depend on the family’s nationality, religion, personal circumstances and the legal regime applicable to the instrument. It would be unsafe to assume that one set of rules governs every expatriate family in Abu Dhabi.
The proposed protocol therefore raises two separate questions: whether the mother can formally record her wishes and whether she can require a future guardian to follow a particular decision-making process.
The first is more straightforward than the second. A parent can express preferences about a child’s upbringing, but the legal effect of those preferences depends on the applicable law and the circumstances in which they are applied.
Guardianship is Different From Parental Wishes
The UAE’s Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2024 on Personal Status contains provisions dealing with minors, guardianship, tutorship and trusteeship. Article 126 addresses the appointment of a tutor by a father in specified circumstances, including his death or inability to act, while allowing a court to make an appointment where appropriate.
The precise application of these provisions must be considered alongside any other legislation governing the family concerned. A parent’s testamentary instructions cannot, by themselves, displace the authority of a competent court or remove the legal responsibilities attached to guardianship.
The DIFC Courts’ Guardianship Will service provides a separate example of how parental wishes may be formalised. Its framework allows eligible individuals to register wills nominating guardians for their children, subject to the applicable rules and UAE public policy. That system should not be confused with the Abu Dhabi proposal, but it illustrates the broader principle that a parent’s wishes operate within a legal framework rather than outside it.
The Living Wishes Protocol goes beyond nominating a guardian. It seeks to influence how the guardian approaches decisions after the mother’s death. Whether such instructions could be recognised without restricting the guardian’s independent judgement is a question that would require careful legal consideration.
Would a Guardian Have to Consult ChatGPT?
The protocol appears intended to make consultation part of the guardian’s decision-making process, not to make the AI’s recommendations binding.
That distinction may be crucial. A requirement to consider advice is different from an obligation to follow it. A guardian might consult ChatGPT before changing a child’s school or moving to another country, yet reasonably conclude that the system’s recommendation does not suit the child’s circumstances.
Under the proposed arrangement, the guardian would retain the final decision, and failure to follow the protocol would not automatically invalidate a decision or the guardian’s appointment.
Nevertheless, if consultation is intended to have legal force, the consequences of non-compliance need to be clear. Could a relative challenge a guardian for failing to consult the system? Would the court consider that failure evidence of improper conduct? And what happens if the service is unavailable or produces advice that conflicts with professional guidance?
These questions expose a potential weakness in making a particular technology part of a long-term legal arrangement. A vague obligation may create disputes without providing a meaningful standard against which a guardian’s conduct can be judged.
A more durable approach may be to distinguish the mother’s substantive wishes from the method used to interpret them. Her values and priorities could be preserved in a carefully drafted letter of wishes, while an AI system remains an optional advisory tool rather than the source of a binding obligation.
The Child’s Welfare Must Come First
The most important limitation is that parental preferences cannot automatically take precedence over the child’s welfare as circumstances change.
The proposed protocol reportedly envisages periodic reviews of the child’s health, education, happiness, relationships and changing needs. It also recognises that the child’s own wishes and feelings should carry increasing weight as he grows older.
This is important because a document prepared today may remain relevant for years, during which a child’s needs and views can change substantially. A parent may favour a particular school, country of residence or approach to religious upbringing. Later, the child may have different educational needs, health requirements or preferences about where to live.
The Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court identifies the child’s best interests as the primary consideration in contested custody arrangements within civil marriages for non-Muslims. Relevant considerations include physical, emotional and educational needs, the child’s wishes where age and maturity permit, the effect of changes in living arrangements and the risk of harm.
The applicable legal route in an individual case must still be established. However, the wider principle is clear: an AI-generated recommendation cannot replace an assessment of the child’s actual circumstances.
The protocol’s strength lies in its attempt to preserve the mother’s values while allowing flexibility. Its greatest risk would arise if consultation became a substitute for independent judgement or if the guardian felt compelled to follow advice that no longer served the child’s interests.
Can AI Reliably Interpret a Deceased Parent’s Wishes?
Even if a court accepts the general concept, the reliability of the technology presents a separate challenge.
ChatGPT does not possess the deceased parent’s personal knowledge or judgement. Its responses depend on the information supplied, the context of the request and the capabilities of the model in use. It may generate inaccurate information, overlook important facts or interpret ambiguous instructions inconsistently.
A written record of the mother’s values would therefore be essential. Broad statements about parenting philosophy may help a guardian understand her preferences, but they may not resolve difficult questions involving medical treatment, relocation, schooling or family relationships.
Continuity is another concern. An AI service may change its technology, terms or availability over time. The system selected today might not be available when the child reaches adolescence, and a replacement may interpret the same instructions differently.
The protocol should therefore preserve the mother’s original record independently of any software provider. It should also establish a process for reviewing the suitability of the technology and provide an alternative if the service becomes unavailable.
Consultation records might help explain how a guardian reached a decision, but they cannot prove that the advice was correct or that the decision was reasonable. The guardian must remain responsible for evaluating the information and, where necessary, obtaining professional advice.
Child Privacy Creates Another Legal Challenge
The proposal also raises questions about the information a guardian might disclose to an AI provider.
Seeking useful guidance may involve sharing details about a child’s health, education, psychological needs and family relationships. Such information can be sensitive, and its disclosure may create risks beyond the immediate decision.
The UAE’s Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on Personal Data Protection establishes requirements governing the lawful and secure processing of personal data. Its application to a particular AI service depends on the circumstances and relevant statutory provisions.
The UAE has also enacted Federal Decree-Law No. 26 of 2025 concerning Child Digital Safety. Article 7 addresses the collection, processing, publication and sharing of personal data belonging to children under 13 by digital platforms, subject to specified safeguards and exceptions. Whether that provision applies to a particular service and use requires a fact-specific assessment.
A parent’s wish to preserve guidance does not automatically justify transferring a child’s personal history to a commercial platform. A workable protocol should specify what information may be shared, who controls access to the mother’s record, how consultation histories are stored and retained, and what happens when the child reaches adulthood.
Sensitive records should not be uploaded unless there is a clear, lawful and necessary reason. Privacy safeguards should be built into the arrangement from the outset, rather than addressed only after the system begins to be used.
Could a Court Reject the AI Clause but Preserve the Will?
The legal consequences of an unsuccessful AI provision would depend on the wording of the instrument and the applicable law.
The reported draft contemplates the possibility that some elements could be placed in a separate letter of wishes rather than the registered will. Such a distinction could be useful because the mother may have valid reasons to document her preferences even if a court does not accept a requirement to consult a particular AI system.
A letter of wishes can explain the parent’s priorities, concerns and hopes without necessarily imposing an enforceable obligation. It can give a guardian valuable context while allowing decisions to adapt to the child’s circumstances.
A formal will should distinguish provisions intended to have legal effect from explanatory material. Whether a disputed clause can be severed without affecting the rest of the instrument would depend on its drafting and the court’s assessment. It should not be assumed that an invalid provision would automatically leave every other part untouched.
Families considering similar arrangements should obtain advice on the appointment of guardians, the status of parental wishes, the relationship between the will and any accompanying document, and the procedure to follow if a guardian disagrees with AI-generated advice.
A New Tool, Not a New Legal Guardian
The Abu Dhabi proposal tests whether estate planning can accommodate AI without transferring human responsibilities to a machine.
Its legal prospects are likely to depend less on the mere mention of ChatGPT than on the substance of the proposed obligation. Voluntary use of AI to help interpret a parent’s recorded wishes is fundamentally different from a clause that purports to compel a guardian to follow automated recommendations.
There is no confirmed judicial approval of the Living Wishes Protocol, and it should not be presented as an established legal precedent. Its eventual treatment under UAE law remains unresolved.
The broader lesson is that technology may help parents preserve their values and assist future carers in understanding them. But the more consequential the decision, the greater the need for clear legal authority, independent human judgement and safeguards for the child.
A parent may be able to leave a record of how they hoped their child would be raised. Whether a court will permit an AI system to become a formally required part of that process is a different question — one that this proposed will has yet to answer.
For enquiries or further information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.