High Net Worth Security for Adult Children and In-Laws

High Net Worth Security for Adult Children and In-Laws

High net worth security for adult children, in-laws and the wider family

High net worth security plans are usually drawn around one household: the principal, a spouse, the children who live at home and the staff. The people just outside that circle, adult children with their own apartments, sons- and daughters-in-law, grandchildren, siblings, are often left out. Three cases reported in early October show why that line can be the wrong place to stop.

In Georgia, authorities arrested a Buffalo, New York, man accused of threatening to kill U.S. Representative and Senate candidate Mike Collins and his son-in-law. USA Today reported on October 6, 2026 that the Butts County sheriff and deputies traveled to New York at the end of the previous week to work with the FBI on identifying the person behind threats toward the congressman and his family. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the suspect faced two counts of terroristic threats, had been arrested with the help of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the FBI’s Buffalo field office, and was awaiting extradition.

In Michigan, ClickOnDetroit reported on October 5 that a Grand Blanc man had been charged in a federal complaint, unsealed that day, accusing him of posting threats on social media to kill the president and the president’s family. Investigators said the same account had posted a sexually explicit comment about the children of the vice president.

And in Surat, India, police said a businessman was kidnapped at gunpoint from his home on October 1 by a young man and two associates who had come looking for his daughter. Teatime Telugu reported on October 3 that the dispute had begun after the daughter stopped communicating with the young man, that the father was taken when she was not at home, and that police used technical surveillance to rescue him within hours and arrest three people.

These are allegations, and nobody in these cases has been convicted. I am not commenting on the politics of the American cases. What they share is the shape of the threat. In two of them, the people named included relatives beyond the principal: a son-in-law, “the family,” the children of another official. In the third, the threat came to a parent’s door because of an adult child’s own personal conflict. In each, the danger moved through family relationships that a plan built around one household might not cover.

This article supports the section on protecting spouses, children, elders and the wider family in our 2026 guide to high net worth security. We have already written about private security for high net worth family members named in threats, which focuses on spouses and young children at home, and about elderly parents. Here I want to look at the adults on the edge of the family: grown children who live independently, the people they marry, and the relatives who become leverage precisely because nobody thought to protect them.

Family house at dusk with a security officer seen from behind at the front door and city apartment towers beyond

Key takeaways

  • Threats against public figures and wealthy families increasingly name relatives. In Georgia, a threat named a congressman and his son-in-law. In Michigan, prosecutors allege a man threatened the president and his family.
  • Adult children and in-laws often fall outside the security plan because they live elsewhere, value their independence or joined the family recently.
  • An adult child’s own conflicts, such as a broken relationship or a business dispute, can bring danger to the parents’ home, as police describe in the Surat case.
  • Map the wider family: who they are, where they live, how public they are and how visibly they are linked to the principal.
  • When a threat names relatives, tell each person named, preserve the evidence, report it and decide on protection for each person separately.
  • Adult children may decline protection. Offer options that respect their independence, from a home review and a check-in arrangement to a security driver for late nights.
  • The family office should decide, with the family, how far its security support extends and who makes decisions for adults outside the main household.

Three October cases where the threat ran through the family

Georgia: a threat against a candidate and his son-in-law

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the suspect, identified by authorities as Anthony Lantrell Bennett of Buffalo, was arrested on a Friday at the start of October and faces two counts of terroristic threats in Butts County, south of Atlanta. The sheriff’s office said he “acknowledged” sending a threatening message to kill the Senate candidate and his son-in-law. Officials did not say how the message was sent. He was awaiting extradition to Georgia when the reports were published.

USA Today reported that the FBI announced the arrest and that the Butts County sheriff and deputies had travelled to New York to work with the bureau. “State lines don’t protect those who threaten violence, and they do not stop the FBI and our law enforcement partners from pursuing them,” Allen D. Davis II, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Buffalo field office, said in a statement. Collins thanked the FBI and local law enforcement for their quick action to protect his family.

From a protection standpoint, the detail I notice is the son-in-law. USA Today reported that he has a large social media following of his own and has appeared in family photographs used in the campaign. A relative by marriage, with his own public profile and a visible link to the principal, was named alongside him in the threat. That is the kind of person a traditional household security plan does not cover.

Michigan: a threat against “the family”

The Michigan case involves the president, who is protected by the Secret Service, so the lesson is not about his family’s security. It is about the language of the threat. According to ClickOnDetroit, the complaint alleges that an account on X posted “Kill Donald Trump with a gun” and “Kill Donald Trump’s family with bombs,” and that the same account replied to a post by the vice president with a sexually explicit comment about his children. Secret Service investigators said subscriber and IP records identified the 33-year-old man, who they said had previously come to their attention over threats in 2018 and 2024. When interviewed at his home on September 8, investigators said, he admitted making the posts and said he continued making threats because he “wants to be heard.” He appeared in federal court on October 5 and was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for October 26.

Threats that name “the family” as a whole are common in the cases I review. They are vague, which makes them hard to assess, and they extend the risk to people who may never have been threatened before and have no idea that they have been mentioned.

Surat: a daughter’s dispute arrives at her father’s door

The Surat case is the more personal of the three. According to Teatime Telugu, police said the accused went to the businessman’s home in the Althan area on October 1 with two associates, looking for the man’s daughter, who had stopped communicating with him. She was not home. An argument broke out with her father, and police said the three men threatened him with a pistol and took him away. Police traced them using technical surveillance and rescued the father within hours. Three people, including the accused, were arrested.

The accused reportedly told police he had gone to the house to demand an explanation after the daughter allegedly used abusive language toward a female friend of his over the phone. Police said that claim was part of the ongoing investigation. The report says police recovered property and valuables worth about 41.4 lakh rupees, along with items allegedly linked to the case.

Whatever the details turn out to be, the pattern is familiar: a conflict in an adult child’s personal life, a person who knew where the family lived, and a father who opened the door to an argument that was not his. The danger did not come from the father’s business or wealth. It came through his daughter’s relationships.

Why adult children and in-laws fall between the cracks

When I review a family’s security, I almost always find that the plan stops at the edge of the main household. There are understandable reasons for that, and each of them creates a gap.

They live somewhere else. An adult child in an apartment in another city, a married daughter in her own house, a son at graduate school abroad. The family’s residential security, cameras and procedures do not reach them.

They value their independence. Many adult children of wealthy families have spent years trying to live normal lives. They may resist anything that looks like their parents’ security, and they have every right to make their own choices.

They joined the family recently. A new son-in-law or daughter-in-law brings their own routines, social media habits and friends. Nobody has briefed them, and nobody has looked at what their presence reveals about the family.

They are visibly linked to the principal. Family photographs, wedding announcements, company websites, foundation boards and campaign materials connect them publicly to the principal. In the Georgia case, USA Today reported that the son-in-law appeared in family photographs used in the campaign.

They have their own lives, and their own conflicts. Adult children have relationships, breakups, business partners, disputes and online arguments. As the Surat case shows, those conflicts can find their way to the parents’ door.

They are leverage. For someone who wants to pressure a principal, a relative who is less protected is an obvious target. A threat against a grown child or an in-law can achieve the same effect as a threat against the principal, with less risk to the person making it.

None of this means every relative needs protection. It means every relative who might be targeted should be in the plan, so that the family can decide deliberately what, if anything, they need.

Mapping the wider family

The first step is a map, kept confidentially by the family office or the security lead. For each relative outside the main household, I want to know:

  • Who they are and how they are linked to the principal. Adult child, son- or daughter-in-law, grandchild, sibling, parent, a partner who is not yet married into the family.
  • Where they live, how secure that home is and whether the address is public.
  • How public they are. Social media following, media appearances, a role in the family business or foundation, a public career of their own.
  • How visibly they are connected to the principal. Shared surname, appearances in family photographs, mentions in profiles of the principal, board seats.
  • Their routines. Work, study, travel, nightlife, regular places.
  • Any known concerns. A difficult former partner, a dispute, harassment online, a stranger who has shown interest.
  • What they want. Whether they would welcome help, and what kind.

The map often reveals a relative who is far more exposed than anyone realized: a grandchild with a large public following who posts from home, a son-in-law whose company website lists the family connection, an adult daughter living alone in a building with no reception. Those are the people to talk to first.

Adult children who live on their own

Grown children who have left home are adults, and any security conversation with them has to start from that. The aim is to give them information and options, not to take over their lives. In my experience, adult children are much more receptive when security is offered as support for the life they have chosen rather than a return to their parents’ rules.

Their home

A short review of an adult child’s apartment or house can make a real difference. Is the building’s front door controlled? Is there reception or a concierge who knows not to confirm residents to strangers? Is the address on public records linked to the family name? Is the door solid, with a good lock and a viewer or camera? Are packages left in a lobby where anyone can read the name? Many improvements are simple and cheap, and an adult child who has chosen them is far more likely to keep using them.

Their routines

Adult children often have very predictable public routines: the same gym, the same office, the same bars on the same nights, the same running route. They also tend to share those routines online. I talk to them about posting after rather than during, about location sharing on their phones and about how a pattern of posts can map their week.

Nights out and getting home

The late-night journey home is one of the exposed moments in a young adult’s week, especially in cities where they use rideshares or walk. For some families, the answer is an account with a vetted car service or a security driver available on request. For others, it is simply a habit of checking in when home. The point is to make the safe option easy enough to use.

College and graduate students

Students living in campus housing or shared apartments have particular challenges: roommates, open buildings, published class schedules, campus events and a social life that is lived largely online. Universities have their own security and police, and a family’s security lead can make contact with them discreetly if there is a specific concern. For students abroad, the plan should include the basics of travel security as well, which we covered in our article on close protection for UHNW families traveling abroad.

In-laws and partners who join the family

When someone marries into a wealthy family, they inherit some of its exposure overnight. Their name appears next to the family’s in announcements. Their photographs appear in family albums and sometimes in the press. Their home address may now be of interest to people who were never interested in them before. And they may have no experience of any of this.

Briefing, not vetting

I want to be careful here. A new son- or daughter-in-law is family, not a suspect, and treating them as one is both wrong and counterproductive. What they need is a welcome and a briefing: how the family handles its privacy, what not to share online, who to call if something feels wrong, and how the family’s security works when they visit. Done well, that conversation makes them feel included rather than watched.

The public profile they bring

Some in-laws bring a public profile of their own: a career in media, a large social following, a political role, a business that attracts controversy. That profile can increase the family’s exposure, as the Georgia case suggests, because attention directed at the in-law can spill over onto the principal, and attention directed at the principal can spill over onto the in-law. The security lead should understand that profile and discuss with the in-law, respectfully, how it intersects with the family’s risks.

Weddings and announcements

Weddings are a moment of exposure in their own right: guest lists, venues, vendors, photographers, announcements and social media from guests. The event itself is a security assignment, and so is the publicity around it. Families who want to celebrate publicly can still decide what is published, when, and with what details.

When an adult child’s own conflicts become the family’s risk

The Surat case is unusual in its details, but not in its shape. In my experience, a meaningful share of the threats that reach wealthy families arise from the personal lives of their adult members: a former partner who will not accept a breakup, a friend who feels betrayed, a business partner in a failed venture, a person who has been rejected online. The anger is directed at the adult child, but the person knows where the parents live, and the parents’ home is easier to find.

Families need a way for adult children to report these things without fear of judgment. A grown son who has had a bad breakup should be able to tell the family’s security lead that his former partner has been showing up uninvited, without feeling that he is confessing a failure. A daughter who is being harassed online should know that the family’s security team can help assess whether the harassment is likely to become physical.

When those reports arrive, the response is the same as for any other threat: listen, record the facts, assess the person’s behaviour, decide whether the police need to be involved, and decide what protection, if any, is needed for the adult child and for the parents’ home. In the Surat case, police say the father was taken when the daughter was not home. In a household that knows about a conflict like that, staff can be told not to open the gate to that person, and everyone can be ready to call the police the moment he arrives.

Adult children with public profiles

A growing number of adult children of wealthy families have public lives of their own: they are influencers, artists, athletes, founders, campaigners or executives in the family business. Their visibility is their choice, and often their livelihood. It also means that their routines, homes and relationships are more exposed than the principal’s, and that attention on them can lead back to the family.

For these relatives, I recommend treating their public profile with the same discipline we apply to a principal’s. Who manages their accounts? What do they post about where they live, where they go and when? Do they share content filmed at the family’s homes? Do they appear at public events, and does anyone do advance work for those appearances? Have they received threats, unusual messages or attention from people who seem fixated?

Private security for high net worth family members with public profiles may eventually look like protection for a principal: a review of online exposure, residential measures, a driver for public appearances and, when the threat picture justifies it, close protection. The decision belongs to them, but the family’s security lead should make sure they have the information to make it.

Threats that name the family

When a threat names relatives, either specifically, as in the Georgia case, or generally, as in the Michigan complaint, the family has to act on two levels at once: the threat itself and each person it names.

Assessing the threat

The first questions are the usual ones. Who sent it, if that is known? How was it sent? Does it contain specific details, such as an address, a schedule, a vehicle or a date? Does the sender appear to have the ability to act? Is there a history of contact or grievance? Has the sender threatened others before? In the Michigan case, investigators said the man had previously come to the Secret Service’s attention, which is exactly the kind of history an assessment looks for.

A threat that names “the family” in general terms is harder to assess, but it should not be dismissed. I treat it as a threat against every member of the family who could reasonably be identified as such, and I look at each person’s exposure separately.

Telling the people who are named

Relatives who are named in a threat should be told, calmly and promptly, by someone they trust. That is sometimes a difficult conversation, particularly with adult children who are not used to thinking about security. But a person who does not know they have been threatened cannot change their behaviour, cannot report something unusual and cannot make an informed decision about protection. In the Georgia case, the threat named the son-in-law as well as the candidate.

Preserving and reporting

Preserve the original message in the form it arrived, with every detail of the sender, the platform and the time. Report it to the police and, where it crosses state lines or targets federal officials, to the FBI. The Georgia case shows how local and federal agencies can work together to identify and arrest a person in another state. As the FBI’s Buffalo special agent in charge put it, state lines do not protect people who threaten violence. That works when the threat reaches them. Our article on private security for high net worth family members and police liaison covers how to make that report useful.

Deciding on protection person by person

Each person named in a threat may need a different response. The principal may already be protected. A spouse at home is covered by the residential program. An adult child living alone in another city may need a home review, a temporary change of routine and a check-in arrangement. An in-law with a public profile may need a review of their online presence and advance work for public appearances. A grandchild at school may need the school to be informed. Close protection may be justified for one person and unnecessary for another.

Private security for high net worth family members who say no

Adult relatives often decline security, sometimes firmly. That is their right, and a family that tries to force protection on an adult child usually ends up with a relative who hides their movements from the family, which makes them less safe, not more.

I approach these conversations by offering a range of options and letting the relative choose:

  • A one-time review of their home and its security, with recommendations they can take or leave.
  • A conversation about their online exposure and what could be reduced.
  • A direct number for the family’s security lead, to call any time something feels wrong.
  • A simple check-in arrangement during periods of higher risk, such as after a threat or a public controversy.
  • An account with a vetted car service or a security driver for late nights or particular events.
  • A plan for what happens if they are in trouble: who they call, what they say, where they go.

Many adult children who refuse “a bodyguard” are glad to accept some of these. Private security for high net worth family members works when it is shaped around the person, not imposed on them. And if a relative declines everything, the family office should still keep them in the map, so that if a threat names them, the response can start immediately.

Close protection for UHNW families when relatives are named

Sometimes a threat or a situation justifies close protection for a relative outside the main household. When that happens, the protection should be designed for the relative’s life, not copied from the principal’s. An adult child who works in an office, goes out in the evening and travels for work needs a different detail from a principal who moves between home, office and private aviation.

Close protection for UHNW families extended to an adult relative should also be time-limited and reviewed. A detail introduced after a threat should be scaled back when the threat has been resolved, the person who made it has been arrested or the risk has been reassessed. That review should involve the relative. A protection detail that continues for months without explanation tends to lose the cooperation of the person it is protecting. Our article on close protection for UHNW families in Los Angeles describes how a detail fits into daily life.

Home security for high net worth individuals at relatives’ homes

The relatives’ homes are often the weakest point in a family’s security, because they are not part of the residential program. In the Surat case, the threat came to the father’s door, not the daughter’s. In other cases I have reviewed, people looking for a principal or an adult child have gone to the home of a parent, a sibling or an in-law because it was easier to find.

Home security for high net worth individuals should therefore extend, at least at the level of an assessment and basic measures, to the homes of relatives who might be targeted. For an adult child’s apartment, that may be a better lock, a camera and a conversation with the building’s concierge. For an in-law’s house, it may be a review of the alarm and the door procedure. For an elderly parent living alone, it may be considerably more. Our post on high net worth security for empty and second homes covers properties that are often unoccupied, and many of the same principles apply.

The door procedure matters in every home. In the Surat case, according to the report, the young man came to the house and an argument broke out at the door. A relative’s home should have a simple rule: unexpected visitors, especially anyone linked to a known dispute, are not let in, are spoken to through a closed door or intercom, and the police are called if they do not leave.

Personal security for high networth individuals: the principal’s role

The principal can do a great deal to reduce the exposure of the wider family. Personal security for high networth individuals includes the choices a principal makes about what to share: family photographs in public profiles, mentions of children and in-laws in interviews, family members’ names on company or campaign materials, and posts that show relatives’ homes or routines.

I ask principals to think about each relative before including them in anything public. Does this person want to be public? Does including them reveal where they live or what they do? If the principal becomes the target of anger, will this person become a target too? A principal who protects the family’s privacy in public makes every other part of the security plan easier.

Security for UHNW family offices: how far does support extend?

Family offices often struggle with a simple question: who is the office responsible for? The principal and the immediate household, certainly. But what about adult children who are financially independent, in-laws, grandchildren, siblings? Security for UHNW family offices needs a clear answer, agreed with the family, because when a threat names a son-in-law, there is no time to debate whether the office should help.

The answer I recommend is a written scope that lists which relatives the office supports for security, at what level, and who decides for adults outside the main household. For many families, the scope covers everyone in the wider family for threat assessment, emergency response and basic advice, with protection decisions made case by case and with the consent of the adult concerned. Family office high net worth individuals security works when relatives know that support is available and how to ask for it, and when the office knows who to call if a threat arrives about someone outside the house.

The office should also think about confidentiality across the family. Adult children may not want their parents to know everything about their lives, including the conflicts that create risk. The security lead should be able to hold some information in confidence, within the limits of safety, so that relatives feel able to report problems early.

High net worth security services for the wider family

If you are evaluating high net worth security services, ask how they approach relatives outside the main household. Do they map the wider family? Do they offer support that respects adult children’s independence? Do they have experience protecting younger adults with public profiles? How do they handle a threat that names multiple relatives in different cities? How do they work with police in other states or countries?

Recommended HNW security teams will treat the wider family as part of the assignment from the start, not as an extra to be priced when something happens. At MSB Protection, our in-house research and development team works on methods to counter threats to UHNW clients, including how we map family relationships and exposure across households and how we monitor threats that name relatives. Our executive protection and residential security teams then turn that picture into protection for the people who need it.

Siblings, cousins and the principal’s own generation

The wider family also runs sideways. A principal’s brothers and sisters, and sometimes cousins, share a surname, appear in old family photographs and may be named in profiles of the principal or the family business. Some of them are wealthy and public in their own right. Others lead entirely private lives and never asked to be connected to anyone’s fortune.

For the private ones, the risk is usually that they become the easiest way to locate or pressure the principal. Their addresses may be on public records under the same surname. Their phones may be answered by people who will happily confirm where the principal is spending the holidays. Their homes may host family gatherings that the principal attends, which turns an ordinary house into a predictable location for one evening a year.

The steps are modest and should be offered with respect. A conversation about not confirming the principal’s whereabouts or plans to anyone who calls. A request not to post family gatherings while the principal is still there. A number to call if a stranger asks about the family. And, when the principal will be at a sibling’s home for a holiday or celebration, the same advance thinking that any other visit would receive: who knows about it, how the principal arrives and leaves, and what the plan is if something goes wrong. Home security for high net worth individuals does not stop at the principal’s own gate on those nights.

Siblings who share in the family’s wealth, or who work in the family business, may need to be treated as principals in their own right. That is a decision for them and for the family office, but it should be made deliberately, not discovered after an incident.

Why the whole family belongs in the plan from the start

I spent twelve years as a Security Operations Director and Senior Team Leader at Gavin de Becker & Associates before founding MSB Protection. Protective work teaches you that problems rarely announce which door they will use. The ways information and access leak out of a family are usually ordinary: a friend of an in-law posts a location, a former partner of an adult child still knows the code to a side gate, a relative confirms a travel date to a caller who sounds official.

In situations like these, nobody has done anything wrong. They simply have not been told what matters. High net worth security that includes them from the start is not more intrusive. It is more complete, and it usually feels lighter to the family, because nobody is surprised when a question comes up.

Grandchildren and the next generation

Grandchildren add another layer. They may live with parents who are not themselves wealthy or public, in homes with little security, attending schools that have no idea who their grandparents are. That anonymity is often their protection, and the family should be careful not to undo it. A grandparent who posts photographs of grandchildren in school uniforms, or mentions their school in an interview, has made them easier to find.

For grandchildren, the practical steps are usually modest. Keep their names, schools and photographs out of the principal’s public profile. Make sure their parents know what to do if a threat names them. Agree with the parents whether the school should be told anything, and by whom. Include the grandchildren in the family’s emergency plan, so that if something happens to the principal or the main household, someone knows who will collect them and where they will go. When grandchildren visit the principal’s home, they are covered by the residential program like anyone else, and staff should know who is authorized to collect them.

Persistent attention that moves between relatives

Some people who fixate on a wealthy family do not stay focused on one person. When the principal becomes hard to reach, they turn to a relative who is easier: an adult child who posts publicly, an in-law with an open social profile, a sibling with a listed address. In my experience, that shift is one of the warning signs that a situation is escalating, because it shows the person is looking for a way in.

That is why monitoring for a family should cover the relatives who are visibly linked to the principal, not just the principal’s name. If a person who has been sending messages to the principal starts commenting on a daughter’s posts, or a stranger who has been seen near the principal’s office turns up near a son’s apartment, the security lead needs to know, and the relative needs to be told. Our posts on high net worth security and the persistent stalker and on protective intelligence from online to physical explain how that monitoring works in practice.

One emergency plan across several households

A family that lives across several homes, cities and countries needs one emergency plan that works across all of them. When something happens to one member of the wider family, the others need to know quickly, and the family office needs to coordinate the response. In practice, the plan should answer a few simple questions:

  • Who is told first, and by whom, if a relative is threatened, attacked, missing or detained.
  • How relatives reach the security lead at any hour, with a number that is always answered.
  • How the family communicates during an incident, on a channel that is not shared with staff, friends or the wider public.
  • Who speaks for the family if the press calls, so that relatives do not reveal details by accident.
  • Where relatives go if their own home is not safe, and how they get there.
  • What happens to the rest of the family when one member is targeted, including whether other relatives change routines for a period.

The Surat case is a reminder of why this matters. Police there said they rescued the father within hours, using technical surveillance. In a kidnapping, a threat or an attack, those first hours depend on how quickly the family realizes something is wrong and how quickly the right people are told. A family that has practiced the plan, even once, will move faster than a family that is improvising across time zones.

A first conversation with the wider family

Families often ask me how to start. My answer is a single gathering, or a series of short calls, with the adult relatives outside the main household. The tone matters more than the content. It should feel like the family looking after its own, not a lecture.

In that first conversation, I cover four things. Why the family is raising the subject now, which may be a threat, a change in the family’s profile, or simply good practice. What support is available, and that it is optional for adults. Who to call, at any hour, if something feels wrong. And a small number of habits that make a real difference: posting after rather than during, not confirming the family’s addresses to strangers, not letting unexpected visitors in, and telling the security lead about any conflict that might follow them home.

Relatives who are curious can then have a longer, private conversation about their own home, routines and online exposure. Relatives who are not interested at least know the door is open. Either way, the family office now has an up-to-date map and a working line of contact with every adult in the wider family. That is the foundation that recommended HNW security teams build on when something happens, and it is far easier to lay before a threat arrives than after.

Budget and proportion

The cost of including the wider family is usually smaller than families expect, because the bulk of the work is planning, advice and modest measures rather than full-time protection. A home review for an adult child’s apartment, a better lock and a camera, a session on online exposure and a check-in arrangement cost very little compared with the main residence’s program. Full-time residential officers or close protection for a relative are reserved for situations where the threat justifies them, and those decisions should be revisited as the situation changes.

Proportion also matters for the relationship. A family that overreacts, placing an adult child under heavy protection after a vague threat, may lose that relative’s trust for years. A family that underreacts, dismissing a specific threat against a son-in-law because “they are not the target,” may regret it far more. Family office high net worth individuals security programs need someone with the experience to judge where each situation sits, and the standing to say so to the principal.

Frequently asked questions

Does high net worth security cover adult children who live on their own?

It should include them in the plan, even if they do not want protection. At a minimum, adult children should be in the family’s security map, know who to call and be told promptly if a threat names them. Many will accept a home review, advice about online exposure or a car service for late nights.

What should a family do when a threat names a son-in-law or daughter-in-law?

Tell them promptly, preserve the threat in its original form, report it to the police and, where appropriate, the FBI, and assess the in-law’s own exposure: home, routines, online presence and public profile. Decide on protection for them separately from the principal.

How can an adult child’s personal conflicts affect the family’s security?

Former partners, friends, business partners or people met online who are angry with an adult child may know where the parents live. Families should make it easy for adult children to report such conflicts so that the parents’ home and staff can be prepared.

Should close protection for UHNW families extend to in-laws and grandchildren?

Sometimes. It depends on the threat and on each person’s exposure. Protection should be designed for that person’s life, agreed with them where they are adults, and reviewed regularly.

What is private security for high net worth family members outside the main household?

It is the set of measures that protect relatives who live elsewhere: assessments of their homes, advice on routines and online exposure, check-in arrangements, transport options, emergency plans and, when justified, residential officers or close protection.

Bringing the wider family into the security plan

A threat that named a candidate’s son-in-law, a complaint alleging threats against a president’s family, and a father taken from his home over his daughter’s dispute: three very different cases, all from the first days of October, and all showing that danger can travel along family lines. The people at greatest risk in those situations are often the ones nobody thought to include in the plan.

High net worth security that stops at the edge of the main household leaves those people exposed. The answer is not to put every relative under protection. It is to map the wider family, talk to them, offer options that respect their independence, act quickly when a threat names them and make sure the family office knows how far its responsibility extends.

For how this fits with home security, family office procedures, travel and close protection, read our 2026 guide to high net worth security. If you would like us to review how your plan covers adult children, in-laws and other relatives, our security assessment team can help, and you can contact us directly.

Sources

About Michael Braun

Michael Braun is a former Special Unit Operator, former Manager at Gavin de Becker & Associates, and Founder & CEO of MSB Protection, an executive protection and residential security firm serving high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth clients.

Braun has built his career at the intersection of specialized protective operations, executive protection, residential security, protective intelligence, and security risk management. His experience spans special-unit operations, leadership within Gavin de Becker & Associates, and the development and oversight of private protection programs within demanding UHNW environments.

He has been recognized by The Top 100 Magazine as a leading CEO in the private security field and is the subject of an upcoming Marquis Who’s Who feature highlighting his leadership and contributions to the profession.

Today, Braun is recognized for his work in executive protection, UHNW estate security, residential protection, protective intelligence, adversarial security assessments, and security auditing throughout Beverly Hills and Southern California.

His work focuses on moving private security beyond simply “providing a body” and toward intelligence-led, risk-based protection programs designed to identify vulnerabilities before an adversary can exploit them.

Looking for Executive Protection or Residential Security Services?

If you are a high-net-worth or ultra-high-net-worth individual, family office, estate manager, chief of staff, or executive in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, Malibu or Southern California, MSB Protection provides executive protection, residential security, 24/7 protection, protective intelligence, medical-readiness planning, and security risk management.

We evaluate the complete security environment, from threat exposure and residential vulnerabilities to personnel, technology, procedures, protective intelligence, and emergency response, and build a program around the risks that actually exist.

Contact us for a confidential consultation or message us at +1 (805) 285-2807.

Loading comments...