[CottonBall]

If we acknowledge that all other things being equal, the kids should receive the deceased parents' estates, then why is it unreasonable to assume they might have some liability accompanying that as well, or at least liability capped at the amount of any inheritance?

I'd be fine with the law that children are the default inheriters being changed. People should have a will anyway. But your idea that children can assume a liability up to the amount of any inheritance is great. Better than the taxpayers getting stuck with the bill.

[Still Thinking]

AFAIK, that’s pretty much what happens now. When someone dies, their assets and debts go into their estate. Creditors have first right over heirs, which is part of the the function of a death announcement and of probate, to allow any creditors to come forward while whatever assets there are from which to collect still exist. After they’ve been satisfied, the heirs get whatever is left according to what’s specified in the will. If the assets are less than the debt, the creditors don’t get full value back, but the heirs don’t get anything, and the excess debt doesn’t pass down to them.