Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: the Mail onlineFamilies should be duty bound to look after grandparents in old age, a senior peer insisted yesterday.
Baroness Deech, one of Britain's most influential family lawyers, said it was only fair that grandchildren support elderly relatives.
She called for a return to the values of the Elizabethan Poor Law, which, until it was repealed by Labour in 1948, forced families to look after those who had brought them up.
In the speech, at Gresham College in London, she harked back to the 1601 Poor Law, the first state system of welfare which gave parishes responsibility to help the poor - but only if no one in their family could do so.
Baroness Deech said: 'From the time of Elizabeth I, the Poor Law required the infirm and the poverty-stricken to rely on their families.
'Sons had to support their parents and grandparents throughout their lives; daughters until they married.'
This was only repealed in England and Wales in 1948, when the National Assistance Act limited the duty to spouses and children. In Scotland it remained law until 1985.
And in some U.S. states and Singapore, family members still have a responsibility to look after aged relatives.
#1 - Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:06 AM EDTThe American colonies had similar laws to England’s — and they were enforced — until the advent of the New Deal, which created the Social Security system, intended to provide 45 percent of a worker’s pre-retirement wages. That would keep mom and dad afloat in the good old days. Civil or criminal cases seeking assistance or reimbursment from adult children all but stopped. But, even more significant to the quiet passing of filial responsibility was the introduction of Medicaid, in 1965, a pillar of the Great Society, which had eligibility requirements that seemed at odds with the existing state laws, even though courts had upheld their constitutionality.
Since Medicaid is an entitlement, not a program everyone pays into like Social Security or Medicare, the Federal government defines eligibility. And Federal law prohibits state Medicaid programs from looking at the finances of anyone other than the applicant or the applicant’s spouse. When the elderly exhaust their assets, individually or as a couple, the government steps in and pays for their long-term care. Adult children are not part of the Medicaid eligibility equation.
But Medicaid is in big trouble — cutting here, squeezing there — and will be inundated when baby boomers reach old age. The staggering cost of long-term care and the explosion in the number of people who will need it has prompted a second look at filial responsibility laws as a way to deal with the impending crisis.
- link
#2 - Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:07 AM EDTHey, I would agree to this only if parents likewise had to bequeath all they have to their children. My father's will stipulates that all his assets go to a hospital. I also think that my older brother, who my father kicked out while he was still a high school student, wouldn't feel particularly welcoming to the idea. Three of my four sisters who were molested by my father also might not feel so welcome to taking care of dear, old dad. I have no offspring, but I did manage to set up two pensions of my own. No one owes me anything in my old age (including the government) and I owe no one. Personally, I find it sad one must look to the 17th century for today's problems. What next? A return to debtor's prisons and witch trials?
#3 - Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:30 AM EDTI agree with you AlKhidr. Some children aren't safe with their grandparents and some parents aren't safe with their children. Some parents prefer not to live with their children. This is a decision that should be left entirely to those involved.
I agree that an adult child should not be on the hook if they have been abused/neglected/abandoned by the parent in question.
However, I disagree that such care should only be given if there's a guarantee of inheritance. It's based on the premise that the care given to the child should be returned to the adult parent in their time of need.
I don't think inheritance should be a prerequisite to caring for parents, but I do think a parent who expects his or her children to take of them while they leave all their assets to a third party nulls any sense of legal obligation that the original Poor Law intended, written at a time when parents were expected to pass down their property to their children. My point here is the problem cuts both ways--for parents to be taken care of responsibly in their old age, they should have taken care of their children responsibly. As I can attest from my own background, this is not always the case. I suspect there are as many if not more prodigal fathers than there are prodigal sons.
Oooooh, this is a tough one, indeed. I would want to see parents and children 'want' to oblige each other in need, but reality says that isn't always possible for one reason or another. I have to agree with 3.1 and say that the decision just depends on those involved; and, that I hope if elder-care is involved, that the sons/daughters would help financially if they can't physically.
I would want to see parents and children 'want' to oblige each other in need, but reality says that isn't always possible for one reason or another. I have to agree with 3.1 and say that the decision just depends on those involved; and, that I hope if elder-care is involved, that the sons/daughters would help financially if they can't physically.
I agree wholeheartedly. When my great grandmother got ill (many many years ago), my grandparents took her in without hesitation or question. My grandmother is now not doing too well and I'm not seeing EITHER of her kids stepping up to take her in. I've offered, but with two children in the house as well as a large dog, it's not the best environment for her.
It's sad where we've "evolved".
Yes, it is sad. I watched a grandfather/mother leave the state to travel to another and care for the grandmother's sister because the children wouldn't do it, yet were in a position to do so in the evenings and on the week-ends. That interim stage where someone is well enough to be at home and doesn't need constant care, but not capable enough to fully manage on their own is hard to deal with and make decisions about. We're all going to be 'there' someday, if we survive to see our 80's, 90's ...
As far as I'm concerned, it takes a special type of @!$%# to turn your back on your parents in their time of need just because it is inconvenient. I simply cannot imagine doing that to my parents.
Again, I'm not saying it sould be mandated, but it is sad that we are at a point where the problem has gotten this bad.
I wish I could vote that comment of yours up about ten times, menmy. Unless someone's parents were themselves pretty terrible, you would certainly have to have a heart of stone not to help them out if it was at all even remotely possible.
If my children and grandchildren had to be forced to care for me in my later life, I would not want the care. Lawyers and government! Can't they keep their noses out of anything?
#4 - Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:00 AM EDTForced care is likely to be poor and resentful care. I took care of my mother before she died, but nobody forced me to do so. For it to be meaninful at all, offering care must be done voluntarily. This sounds an awful lot like "community service volunteers" who are forced to perform work hours instead of going to jail.
Most family matters, IMHO, should be and remain private.
#5 - Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:39 AM EDTI took care of my mother during the last year of her life. I did this with an understanding staff and and understanding boss. Otherwise this would have never been possible. It was a full time job. I was single and had no other person to help me as I was her only child. As I am a nurse her care was not complicated or scary to me and I had direct 24 hour communication with her doctor. But this is not true for most patients. People work and they cannot afford to provide home care for their loved one. Most family members would perfer to keep their family member at home but they are afraid and they can't afford the care. And when the end comes, even if they have made the decision to let their family member go in a peaceful manner, they panic, call 911 and resuscitation occurs. People cannot be FORCED into providing home care without some assistance. Most families now days are barely making ends meet. They cannot afford to lose their jobs much less provide home care. People who try to make laws like this have either never had a family member that needed 24 hour care or had enough money to hire someone to assist them so that they could continue to work. They just don't understand what patient and family members are having to deal with when making these decisions. Diane, RN
#6 - Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:05 AM EDTThis sums up my experience in trying to take care of my own mother (and myself as well) at the close of her life.
Each experience is different (I am sure) but one certainty is "it is never easy" (no matter what choices are made).
It was seven years ago today that I lost my mother (almost to the very hour) which is probably why I am up at this hour, at the keyboard (after having taken two sleeping pills) - I still can't sleep.
But I had brought her home and that's where she had asked to be. I did the best I could under the circumstances. Only the good Lord above can answer whether the decisions made were the right ones. After seven years I still question them.
Mic, the way I look at life is that in 'every' moment in time, we do what seems 'right' at the time; and, at the next moment or second - we will always question what we said or did..there will always be hindsight.. --another paradox in life. All that we can ever expect from ourselves is a realization of - That is 'who' we are; we did the best we could with what we have to work with. - Maternal and paternal emotional bonds (especially opposites) are very powerful until death, and then we are set free. Peace to you.
It's sad that this is not the norm. My sisters and I helped take care of my grandmother when she had an aneurism and was left paralyzed on her right side. She lived with us for about 2 years. My father had a stroke in 2004 and died in 2005. I helped my mom take care of him. My mom broke her ankle last month. I sit with her almost everyday just because.
One really weird thing. . .when my dad had his stroke, the company I was working for closed one week after that, so I was unemployed for that entire year, which was a good thing. Mom breaks her ankle and, once again, I am gainfully unemployed. Not that I like being unemployed, I do appreciate the timing. :)
I don't know. . .when my grandma had her aneurysm, all SIX of her other kids wanted to throw her in a nursing home. Mom said, "Hell No!!" and that was that.
I know that my situation cannot be compared to every other situation, but there are several that it CAN be compared to. There are people who, simply because it will be an inconvenience, will kick their parents to the curb.
There are people who, simply because it will be an inconvenience, will kick their parents to the curb.
And that's their choice. No one should be forced to be a caregiver.
And that's their choice. No one should be forced to be a caregiver.
You're absolutely correct. I simply don't understand why it is not second nature to take care of your parents if they need it. That's just me.
There are exceptions, such as those mentioned in post #3. But, just because you don't want to? That's just wrong in my book.
And YES. . .my book matters. LOL!!
What next? A return to debtor's prisons and witch trials?
Debtor's prison still exist (at least in Texas they do). In Texas it's built directly into the judicial system. In Texas if you cannot afford a lawyer the court will appoint one for you (and then charge you for it). Can't afford to pay the court-appointed attorney fee (?; your only alternative is to sit the fee out in jail)!
The term ("debtor's prison") is (I believe) deliberately avoided in the legal terminolgy (definition of the law) but is employed (practiced) by methodology. The same may be said with regard to the terminology employed to define taxes....
A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government a payment exacted by legislative authority." A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, sales, income, user fee, or other name."
Regardless of what you call a tax, if it walks and talks like a tax, it's a tax (same thing with a modern debtor's prison).
In the Texas Judicial system, failure to pay an imposed fine (or fee) imposed by the court (regardless of ability to pay) may be deemed an act of "Contempt of Court" and therefore subject an individual to a prorated incarceration, by which the fee is paid by flesh instead of currency (at a predetermined rate of restitution based on a per day basis of incarceration).
Thanks, Mic.
(I have someone accusing me of derailing, hijacking articles for personal exchange, and in general causing trouble - never my intention - and hope it was Ok to comment to you. ;-)
This is readily applicable and pertinent to the topic of this article seeded by the author in that it is a lawyer who supposedly said this and the direct legal ramifications that may result. If (say, for instance) an individual were found (regardless of circumstance - e.g the aforementioned case of incest) to be in neglect of their financial responsibility with regard to the care for their elderly or infirm parent (the matter of prior incest would not even be heard [taken into account]) by the court (having designated a specific monetary damage to the case in point), if (regardless of the individuals ability to make such payment (restitution) the individual will be incarcerated for the length of time required to pay off the imposed fine (or fee).
The exact same methodology is practiced with regard to child support enforcement in every state of the union today, so far as I am aware.
CL1, who's doing that to you, if you don't mind me asking?
Addendum:
"The exact same methodology is practiced with regard to child support enforcement in every state of the union today, so far as I am aware."
This would likely be the type of precedent introduced for argument (prosecution) of this particular type of case.
alkimija, I am being threatened if I say anything.
I don't see harm in my exchanging a few posts with other viners. I see many others doing it all of the time, many go off-topic for a few posts, yet this person and their group(?) choose to single me out, criticize and ostracize me. I wonder if I should ask every moderator of every seed I participate in - if it is ok to exchange with one person, even if it is a little OT, as Mic and I are being right now?
CL1, feel free to send me an e-mail. I don't like bullies and I don't like to see anyone bullied at Newsvine.
On my threads, so long as everyone's being courteous and the conversation isn't toxic, I'm generally very understanding of the fact that conversations can naturally evolve, and sometimes in surprising ways. Not all off-topic conversations are derailing or no value; some of the most interesting discussions I've seen here at NV were those that unexpectedly branched off from the main discussion in a surprising and delightfully insightful/entertaining fashion.
Thank you, alkimija. What's odd is that I trusted this person. We exchanged emails in friendly exchange, then one day everything I said was twisted and misconstrued and is now being used against me. I made a few mistakes and said a few things I shouldn't have, nothing malicious or defaming, but they are threatening to forward all of my emails to others to cause trouble for me. Please take no offense, but I don't know who to trust anymore; I thought this was an online friend, not just a screenname. I hope you understand. (sorry to be off-topic here)
I agree, I've been in many tangent conversations that were really interesting and informative and hope to have the opportunity to continue. Thank you for your interest in my comment.--CL
I can sympathise: unfortunately - and much to my surprise - I have (thankfully very rarely) found myself in similar situations. There are some weird people out there; I understand where you're coming from. If it's any consolation, in my experience the wackos usually lose interest and move on to new victims fairly quickly. I hope everything works out.
Thank you so very much, alkimija. You'll never know how much those words mean right now. The right words at the right time - something I may not always do a good job of - but I sure do try! You just did that ... peace to you.
There are exceptions, such as those mentioned in post #3. But, just because you don't want to? That's just wrong in my book.
Just because you don't want to is a legitimate choice. Aren't there things you don't do because you don't want to?
#9 - Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:42 AM EDTAren't there things you don't do because you don't want to?
Sure, but not taking care of my parents if/when they need me to in NOT one of them.
Do I feel like getting up every morning at 7 am and going to my sister's house almost everyday to sit with my mom? No. But I do because 1) that's my mom and 2) she would do the same for me.
I'm disagree that "just because you don't want to" is a legitimate choice. If your parents took care of you adequately as a child, you should return the favour when they need the help in their golden years.
Only if you want to. This is American and we have the freedom to make our own decisions. Why would you want to take that freedom away from anyone? Why should everyone believe as you do?
There shouldn't be the freedom to neglect our personal responsibilities.
For instance, we don't have the "freedom" to abandon or neglect our children. If someone does, they would be thrown in jail, and for good reason.
Similarly, we shouldn't have the "freedom" to neglect our responsibility for caring for our elderly parents in their time of need. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances justifying our absence, we should be there to help out - instead of forcing other taxpaying citizens to pick up the tab for us.
Freedom should not be measured based on your thought pattern.
And people do have the freedom to neglect their children, they do it all the time. The trade their children for drugs. They don't feed their children healthy meals. They don't take them to the doctor or dentist on a regular basis. They don't fight for their children to have a great education.
I don't know of any seniors who don't receive a social security check or have medicare that they've paid into. Do you?
The elderly had the opportunity to invest their money. Many of them did and have a nice eggs nest to provide for them. Those who didn't choose not to and again that was their choice not to do so.
It is not your right to make people do what you want them to do.
If people really had the "freedom" to neglect their children, they wouldn't be charged, tried, and thrown in jail for getting caught doing so.
It is not your right to make people do what you want them to do.
But neither is it your right to engage in criminal neglect. If filial responsibility is on the books, and your state is determined to enforce it...
What you fail to acknowledge is they're are doing it before it's brought before the law and not all neglect is discovered. Look at the number of children who were molested by priests. Many parents ignored their children because they put their priests above their children. And not everyone found negligent are charged.
You can't wind this argument because you're arguing on emotion and not on common sense. I'm moving on now to another topic.
So, your argument is that you're "free" to abuse and neglect your children - so long as nobody finds out, that is. That's not "freedom," that's getting away with criminal behaviour. That's like saying you enjoy the "freedom" of taking other people's possessions and it's not wrong so long as you don't get caught.
Not exactly a compelling (certainly not moral) argument.
If your parents took care of you adequately as a child
But there also lies a big issue. To some that can be a purely subjective subject. some would say as long as a roof and food was provided that is adequate, others would say it is more in depth. Who is to say what is adequate for a child.
Now with that said, I find it really awful that children wouldnt want to take care of their parents. I dont necessarily believe it should be passed on to the grandchildren though. All I know is if it were my mom and dad, I would do anything I could to help them.
FW - I am with you. There is absolutely no way I wouldn't do all I could for my parents in their time of need.
Sure, but not taking care of my parents if/when they need me to in NOT one of them.
Do I feel like getting up every morning at 7 am and going to my sister's house almost everyday to sit with my mom? No. But I do because 1) that's my mom and 2) she would do the same for me.
And that's your choice. Because you believe this is the right thing to do doesn't mean everyone has to follow your lead. Your choice is not right for everyone.
#10 - Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:32 PM EDTDon't misunderstand. . . I am not for mandating that people take care of their parents. It's just that, to me, it's just one of those things that should simply be.
When my mother became ill, we were blessed. We had a brother that wasn't employed, and he took care of her. When the rest of us had days off, we came in and gave my brother a break. Other than that, I I don't know what we would have done. We all had to work just to make ends meet. My mother did have a husband that was fully capable of taking care of her, but he was too selfish to do so.
My father has all kinds of plans in place. His wife is getting on up in age also, and I don't think she would be capable of taking care of him alone. In their situation, I think she would have plenty of help. I could only go help out on my days off, but if I had to, I would.....not because I feel obligated to, but because I want to.
My father took care of my grandmother when she started to fail, but they had to wind up putting her in a nursing home because nothing they ever did was good enough. I wouldn't have helped if I could have. She belittled my father, constantly berated me.........she was a witch.
#11 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:02 PM EDTI would gladly take care of my Mom and Dad, but I don't live in the same town. Fortunately they have the presence of mind to get long term care insurance, and invest their money wisely, and they still have thier wits about them. As for my husband both of his parents have already passed so there is no need.
I would think the safety of an elderly parent who was abusive, in the hands of the abused child might be an issue, especially if that child is forced to care for the parent they got away from as soon as they could.
#12 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:24 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
