Can I assume you did not bother to read the article(s)? People who are either more curious or less committed to Trump will read them, once the media start trotting them out on front pages when he gets the nomination. I understand your reluctance to read articles that contradict your deeply-held belief about Trump, but let me suggest that you go beyond your comfort zone, especially since Trump is a complete stranger to you and his image is the result of many millions of dollars of professional public relations efforts. I've been reading about Trump since the mid-80's. I never thought he was a nice guy, and I never dreamed that he was looking out for anyone's interests but his own.
No I wouldn’t assume that at all.
I read them both and then I looked further into the circumstances. The links both had the feel of articles aimed at tugging the heart strings and selling papers so I searched to see what the financial circumstances of the family with the son who was disabled were, what resources they had, if the estrangement was temporary etc.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that while the grandchildren had sued and were striking out because they were unhappy with the will the family had ample resources. http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Trump-family-gives-back-to-agency-that-helps-4590816.php
I do enjoy the British tabloids but if I am really interested I use them to mine for data from other sources. I always like several sources and if possible use ones that are written closer to the time of the actual issue. The business with the will was apparently related to actions taken by the son that angered the father as well as a daughter-in-law issue. Trump agreed with his father but I saw no evidence that he intervened in the will; it was the father’s choice. The child at issue was not left without care; in fact he has had superb care.