Is "sins of the father" a logical fallacy?

I've come across comments attacking the original poster of an issue which the OP brought up, an issue about corrupt politicos. The attackers claim that since the OP's father has a graft case pending in courts, then OP does not have the moral ascendancy to call out the corrupt politicos.

It is clearly a logical fallacy, and it certainly has aspects of tu quoque / whataboutism, maybe guilt by association as well, but is there a definitive type of logical fallacy which it falls under?

I think you identified the fallacious parts of this well with the other fallacies. There is no specific fallacy that covers a "sins of the father" type of argument. It could be argued (and often is) that the child benefits significantly from the sins of the father, therefore, the child is at least partly responsible. As for its legitimacy, it would be on a case-by-case basis. Some times this might make sense; most times is does not.

Haha, I believe this to be a literal genetic fallacy