"Filial Responsibility" - LEGALLY obligated to par

Talk about anything and everything in-law related.

Moderators: Phred, Island of Sanity, willthetruthbetold, meimei, foxmanb

"Filial Responsibility" - LEGALLY obligated to par

Postby Jequelline » Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:43 pm

I just heard about something called "filial responsibility," a law that exists in 31 states. It mandates that, in the event of your parents becoming indigent and mentally incapacitated, and they receive nursing home care, the government can then attach YOUR assets to pay for that care!
You can actually be JAILED, in my state (KY), for "nonsupport."
I find this appalling.

Does anyone know anything about this, or have any experience with this issue?

:shock:
Pain is inevitable.......but misery is optional.
Jequelline
Enraged
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:48 pm

Postby Island of Sanity » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:20 pm

This is the first time I've heard of it. Here's what I found when I did a search:

Filial responsibility laws have traditionally not been enforced, possibly because federal law prohibits state Medicaid programs from looking at the finances of anyone other than the applicant or the applicant's spouse.

Yikes! Who would have thought this could possibly be legal? I live in a community property state; what's mine is DH's, and what's DH's is mine. To think that the state could have claimed our assets--our kids' chance to go to college--our retirement savings--money we earned from our own hard work, no thanks to my ILs--my parents' gifts to me and my kids--for his parents' care after a lifetime of their making foolish choices. If the states ever did decide to enforce it, there'd be a legal challenge before long.

If the states won the challenge, well then, I think we'd see a lot of folks deciding to care for Granny at home instead of paying for a nursing home, with a huge rise in elder abuse/neglect, as a result. Not that I'm endorsing or excusing abuse or neglect in any formt, but it would almost certainly happen.
Island of Sanity
Moderator
 
Posts: 4873
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: USA

Postby A&W » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:27 pm

:( This law worried me. I have 4 kids and don't want them to be obligated to support me or my DH in old age. I certainly would never want them to go into debt over me. I had them out of love.

On the flip side my parents have my fathers retirement and are average income. Dad was a truckdriver. Mom was disabled many years ago due to a medical error with medication. My mom has recently had kidney cancer, and my dad has had a heart attack about 6 years ago. I would do whatever I could to take care of them. They would never want my DH or myself to go broke supporting them. They even said they would never want to move in with us if one of them died, because they wouldn't want to be a burdin.

We live out of state from my inlaws (Thank God). But FIL has quite a bit stocked away in different things. Even so I think if the IL's wanted to move in with a child it would be DH's sister. First off they would never move out of state and away from family. SIL owns her own home with no kids and plenty of room. She is recently divorced. I think my IL's had something to do with it big time. To much interference. Never cut the apron strings either.

Anyhow, here is some info I found at:
http://everydaysimplicity.blogspot.com/ ... st-of.html

States with filial responsibility laws are: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

I hope it's helpful.
A&W
A&W
Angry
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Postby Island of Sanity » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:54 pm

My mom lives in one of those states. But she never wanted to be a burden to her kids, so she had the good sense to get long-term care insurance while she was still healthy. The funny thing is that I would have been willing to do as much as I could for Mom, even without the state forcing me to, because she's always been such a good and loving mother. I can't say the same about my ILs. Not that I would have wanted them to starve in the streets, but their treatment of my kids and me, and even their treatment of DH, didn't earn them the same kind of care that I feel my mom's entitled to.
Island of Sanity
Moderator
 
Posts: 4873
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: USA

Postby ISHATETOOSTRONG » Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:03 pm

Both my parents and PIL's are in states that have it. I'd like to believe that these would never be upheld if they were ever enforced. But I wouldn't want to be the trial case, either.
Never argue with an idiot. They pull you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
ISHATETOOSTRONG
Nova
 
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: east coast

Postby Jequelline » Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:30 pm

Apparently, where this comes in, is where a person is placed into a nursing facility.
Their estate pays for their care - and - if the person LIVES LONGER than their estate pays for, well --- what then?

"Filial responsibility laws have traditionally not been enforced, possibly because federal law prohibits state Medicaid programs from looking at the finances of anyone other than the applicant or the applicant's spouse."

That true - but once a person is IN a nursing facility, drawing Medicaid benefits, that is when this sort of thing becomes applicable, evidently.

This law gives the government, if this person gets Medicaid, the license to attach assets of the person's CHILDREN, to pay back the government.

You can even be JAILED in my state (KY) for non-support of an indigent PARENT............!

"A person is guilty of nonsupport:
(a) When he persistently fails to provide support which he can reasonably provide
and which he knows he has a duty to provide to a minor or to a child adjudged
mentally disabled, indigent spouse or indigent parent;"

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/530-00/050.PDF

:shock:
Pain is inevitable.......but misery is optional.
Jequelline
Enraged
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:48 pm

Postby Island of Sanity » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:40 pm

I did some more Googling and found this:

[b] Generally, in most states, actual enforcement has occurred only when a parent has tried to give away assets to children in order to “spend downâ€
Island of Sanity
Moderator
 
Posts: 4873
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: USA

Postby tryingnottobeangry » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:33 pm

Yikes! I am glad that I do not live in one of those states.

My mother (61) thinks that because my dad passed that I now have to take care of her ... :shock: She wanted to move in with us, and we take care of her. :shock: Part of this needy behavior is her attention seeking, and she uses it on many people around her. Consequently, many friends and family have distanced themselves from her, because quite frankly, her actions are very overbearing.

What is very frightening is that my mother is refusing to buy health insurance. She will lie, and sometimes tell people that she has it, but the truth is, there is none. I have heard her tell people ... "I just can't afford it!" But she won't even look into it even though DH and I have had several affordable reputable companies send her into. She refuses to acknowledge what is in front of her. If anything serious does happen to her, she is basically one health crisis away from losing everything. I have severed financial ties to prevent any possible consequences to DH and my finances etc.

I can understand when states may prosecute when there is deception, and some hidden assets to make the taxpayers and governemt pay when that is not needed. But, I can see the frightening side too, of having to defend against toxic parents who just want to get at thier own children.
tryingnottobeangry
Infuriated
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:22 am

Postby Jequelline » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:53 pm

My mother (61) thinks that because my dad passed that I now have to take care of her ... She wanted to move in with us, and we take care of her.


Maybe I'm weird, but I thought the PARENTS were supposed to take care of the CHILDREN (when the children are little.)
Where do people get this warped sense of entitlement, like "you OWE me for raising you."
B.S. I owe nothing. I didn't ASK to be born. When people have children, THEY are obligated, to the KIDS.

Sick!

And, especially with your Mom and her refusal to get health insurance! That's appalling.

I don't WANT my kids to EVER take care of me, or feel burdened. I'd rather crawl off and die in the woods, before I would want to burden my precious babies. :lol:

My ditzy MIL did the same thing as these other women, she only had SONS, and she has preached ALL THEIR LIVES against nursing homes!

Of course, no one in the family is discussing these issues. They won't talk about ANYTHING until they HAVE TO. NO planning, at all. When my FIL passed - at age 85, mind you - he hadn't even bought a cemetary plot for himself! :shock:
Pain is inevitable.......but misery is optional.
Jequelline
Enraged
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:48 pm


Return to In-Laws Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blue iris, Google [Bot] and 3 guests