"Filial laws"--- familiar w/them? Better read up...

[Katera]

Thank you for this thread. It has really opened my eyes to alot of things (including not signing a financial responsibility form) if/when my mother has to go into a nursing home. She has been disastrous with money over her lifetime and has always expected someone to bail her out. Married 3x divorced 3x. We are semi-estranged and i will not take from my wife and kids to support her bad choices. These laws are TERRIBLE.

[selhars]

Do you live in a state that has a law like this? You may not sign the form for her admittance -- but you'd better help the nursing home with THEIR application for state aid.

And if you've never had anything to do with your mom's finances. The law subconsciously COULD twist your arm to go to her house, dig through her papers, and FIND the info they want. You've never had anything to do with her financial life -- yet you're supposed to be able to provide the information they want and need. How you would do that is on you.

Again, right now states are going after low hanging fruit. If they get desperate enough YOU, and we all, could become that fruit.

Supposedly in PA there's been an effort to repeal the law. Pushed in part by elder care and estate attorneys. But how strong it REALLY is, I've never been able to get a handle on. A couple of letters ain't gonna get this done. Just as we've seen with other changes -- you need a relentless, very carefully targeted, consistent campaign pushed by dogged and determined people or entities who are true believers in their cause.

[Katera]

Originally Posted by selhars

Do you live in a state that has a law like this? You may not sign the form for her admittance -- but you'd better help the nursing home with THEIR application for state aid.

And if you've never had anything to do with your mom's finances. The law subconsciously COULD twist your arm to go to her house, dig through her papers, and FIND the info they want. You've never had anything to do with her financial life -- yet you're supposed to be able to provide the information they want and need. How you would do that is on you.

Again, right now states are going after low hanging fruit. If they get desperate enough YOU, and we all, could become that fruit.

Supposedly in PA there's been an effort to repeal the law. Pushed in part by elder care and estate attorneys. But how strong it REALLY is, I've never been able to get a handle on. A couple of letters ain't gonna get this done. Just as we've seen with other changes -- you need a relentless, very carefully targeted, consistent campaign pushed by dogged and determined people or entities who are true believers in their cause.

We live in Texas, and possibly eventually Arizona. Both states are not on that list thank goodness .

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by selhars

And BTW how is that -- keeping mom who is already IN a home out of state so you can't be held responsible -- any different from using legal, legitimate asset protection options YEARS BEFORE anyone is even thinking about a nursing home? Talk about intention?…. one is clearly doing it to avoid responsibility, in the other case there's not even a though about any nursing home. And for all we know a lawyer told the adult child to keep mom out of state just for that protection. Both are LEGAL.

If you really have to ask that question, it's kind of pointless debating the point.

Let's consider two hypothetical circumstances.

In Case A, mom has a house and brokerage account worth $1 million evenly split between the house and the brokerage account. The house is sold to a child way below market rate. Say $100K. Mom continues to live in that house paying all the operating costs of the house. Maintenance, property taxes, utilities, insurance... The brokerage account is drained over several years by gifting $14,000 per year to each child, spouse of child, and grandchild. Let's say 2 married children with 2 grandchildren each so $100K of gifting every year. Or I use that account to pay grandkid college bills. I can make that woman look destitute on paper in a few years.

In Case B, mom has no house and has a brokerage account worth $300K. She has to go to assisted living and her run rate is $60K per year. I'm paying all the bills. In 5 years, she is destitute. I haven't received a dime of benefit and I'm certainly not being compensated for all the time I'm putting in managing my mother's affairs.


So it's now 5 years later. In Case A, the family has received $1 million in generational transfer. In Case B, all I've gotten is 5 years of huge hassles dealing with a senile mother. The senile mother now lands in a Dementia ward and Medicaid has to pick up the tab. She eventually then lands in a nursing home at even higher expense.

So you think there's no difference? I think that in Case A, the state is entirely correct to use filial law to claw back all the state money spent on Medicaid. In Case B, I'd tell another state it will be a cold day in hell before I voluntarily reimburse them for Medicaid expenses. They're not going to sue me under filial law because I have no assets in the state and it's unlikely it would hold up in a Federal court.

By the way, I'm one year into "Case B". It's my sister and my intention to pay the bills after my mother's resources are exhausted but if she's totally out of it in a nursing home not knowing anyone, we likely would stop paying.

People do "Case A" every day. With a bit of estate lawyer magic, you can even do it legally. That's why filial laws were enacted in the first place. To chase those people who drained the money so the state is stuck paying for nursing home care.

[selhars]

By the way, I'm one year into "Case B". It's my sister and my intention to pay the bills after my mother's resources are exhausted but if she's totally out of it in a nursing home not knowing anyone, we likely would stop paying.

Please help me understand. I'm lost as to why that matters. She'd still be alive and need the care, no?

In Case B, all I've gotten is 5 years of huge hassles dealing with a senile mother.

Some see it as a duty to make sure loved ones are cared for. Doesn't mean it's not exhausting and draining to the core. But they don't "expect" anything in return other than know they can sleep at night knowing they didn't their best for their parent.

Should you -- could you -- be bitter because others used legal means you didn't.
I'd think you'd be proud to live by your principles and beliefs.

I'm not trying to argue with you I'm just having a conversation -- about some very important issues….which as we both know families are dealing with every day. If you've event been to the caregiving board you know these topics are very emotional for people living with this issue.

[loves2read]

Ideally AARP should spearhead repealing filial laws because they are leftover from different era and while they seem like would be an asset for seniors are really more a minefield of potential problems and ill-applied legal precedents...
With so many people living longer, plenty of AARP members can be caught in the middle of having to save for their own retirement and help their older parents...plus having to help kids w/college or post college

[oldsoldier1976]

Born and raised in a state without the law (Maine) and live in a state that does (Massachusetts). My aunt on my mother's side has been in a nursing facility since the mid 80s as a ward of the state. She was born blind and paralyzed and when my grandmother sat down in the chair in her kitchen and never woke up my mom made the decision to put her there. She has some health issue but dementia is not one. She can't walk and her weight makes it impossible for anyone but professionals to handle her but she is happy. The nursing home is terrific. Cost of living in Maine is low so good people work there for good money for the area so we have not had an issue. Mom gave up the house and everything to get her there. Now 30 years later mom is gone, lost to cancer. My sister and I are basically what is left of our family. My dad is on his way out but I do what I can but I will not bankrupt myself for him. I don't expect the state to look for it either even if they had that law. It isn't like dad had anything to give me but genes and a last name. What I have I earned. Some of what he has came from me and it isn't much. My sister won't lift a finger in his direction except to flip him the bird.

So to the point Selhars yes I worry about it. But that is why I am setting up our life so that my only daughter need not worry about either me or her mother. Some form of LTCi and savings will be kept for us. I have VA help which may or may not be much good but it is there to fall back on. I do want people to be held accountable for themselves and to transfer 100s of thousands of dollars in order to keep it in the family is a privilege that only the extremely wealthy can afford or need. The rest of us we just do what we can.

Just one more point. I live with my mother-in-law in the house. She is 82 and still going strong but should she fall ill it will fall to our family to take care of her. Her net SS is almost nil after Medicare and supplement. Yet she wants for nothing. We take care of our family. If we need help with MIL my wife's family will be there. It is a Korean thing. 3 brothers and my wife are the siblings. 3 are doing financially well with the middle brother so so. But will that stop the brothers from chipping in? ABSOLUTELY not. Will we send mom out of the country to avoid paying a bill? ABSOLUTELY NOT! I think that is the difference in cultures we are talking about.

I agree with you Selhars. I just want to explain why I feel the way I do about that particular case and others just like it. It seems that the ones those laws are hitting are the ones who skirted the law or outright tried to break them. I would like to see the law abolished or tuned up so that it goes after only the ones that are scofflaws.