Pa Law " filial responsibility " (Penn: fit in, hotel, lawyer)

[decknrckngchir]

[SIZE=4][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]I've been stewing all night and now I have reached the boiling point. Rather the boiling over all over the stove point. Is anyone here familiar with " filial responsibility " ? No. Well, here is a brief breakdown of what poor planning on my parents part, me, trying to do the right thing, and a big dose of stupidity on my part has lead me. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4] " [/SIZE][SIZE=4]It is clear that in Pennsylvania children can be held liable for the support of their parents. And there does not have to have been a transfer of assets for the child to be liable. The child just needs to have sufficient financial ability to provide the support.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]The liability of a child of adequate means to provide support for an indigent parent in a nursing home is the law in Pennsylvania, and is unlikely to change. If a parent isn't able to apply for Medicaid because of poor planning involving transfers of assets or neglect by the child (as in PA's Budd case), the children are liable. This is going to become a much bigger issue in the future as a result of the likely tightening of the Medicaid asset transfer rules over the next year.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]Both parents and children need to be aware of this potential liability. Children have financial responsibility for their parent's care. They cannot just sit back and disregard their parents' health and financial circumstances. A lack of planning by the parent, or poor planning, can come back to haunt the child. When the need for long term care arises, effective planning combined with expert advice regarding the ever shifting Medicaid laws, can protect not only the parent's assets, but the children's' as well. "[/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]So, I come home from work and sitting in my mailbox to greet me is a bill for almost $20,000.00 . Yes, you read that right. Now my objection to this law is: 1. I have had minimal contact with my mother and step father that spans 30 years. 2. The half sister that lived at their home until the age of 26 and moved 10 miles away after marriage, the sister, ( excuse me. I have to wipe the spit off my lip ) the sister that benefited from her parents Monterey, child care, food, clothing, just general assistance has somehow flow under the radar. The sister with the money in the bank and the acreage throughout NEPA, and don't forget the "Grand Hotel "vacations.
Their is no POA. There is no transfer of assets to me. I did not benefit from my mother in any way. What I did was to give a damn. My mother is living her last days and I could not in good conscious leave her alone in a home, where the sister does not visit, I could not leave her alone in her last days or years even.
Oh yeah, and a brother in FL. Law makers os Pa, where does he fit in?

Now I realize this law is not exclusive to NEPA but as I have in the oh so recent past to friends and other family, heads up. BTW, of the 3 children, I am not" a child of adequate means ".

I want to thank you all for listening. I thought I was going to have an aneurysm.
Hi ho, hi ho, off to the lawyer I go.
[/SIZE]

[I LOVE PA!]

Wow...that is interesting.

[mathjak107]

found this in the internet In Pennsylvania:

In Pennsylvania, the first law imposing a duty of filial support is found in the Act of March 9, 1771, which required that children support their indigent parents if the children were of sufficient financial ability. This was obviously designed to relieve state and local authorities from the burden of supporting poor persons who had relatives of financial means who could care for them. The current formulation of the law has been on the books since 1937.

An example of its enforcement is the 1994 Pennsylvania Superior Court case, Savoy v. Savoy which involved an elderly parent whose reasonable care and maintenance expenses exceeded her monthly Social Security income. The Superior Court found that she was indigent and affirmed the lower court’s order directing her son to pay $125 per month directly to her medical care providers.

In July 2005, the Pennsylvania legislature passed an Act which, among other things, moved the filial support provision in the Pennsylvania statutes to a central position in its Domestic Relations Code. The law reads: “all of the following individuals have the responsibility to care for and maintain or financially assist an indigent person: (i) the spouse of the indigent person, (ii) the child of the indigent person, (iii) the parent of the indigent person.”

Little enforcement?

Historically, these filial responsibility laws have rarely been enforced. Some states that have these statutes on the books have never enforced them at all.

Why so little enforcement? One of the main reasons is that the government has taken over this traditionally familial responsibility. Since the 1960's federal law (U.S. Code Title 42 §1396a(a)(17)(D)) has barred the states from considering the financial responsibility of any individual (except a spouse) in determining the eligibility of an applicant or recipient of Medicaid or other poverty programs. In other words, even if family members have a legal duty to support a loved one, the federal government places the burden on taxpayers. In the words of Matthew Pakula, “The moral duty receded as society evolved, family life changed, and government created a variety of federal and state programs to meet the needs of the poor.”

As the pending financial crisis of how to pay for the care of the nation’s elderly looms, the issue of family responsibility is coming to the fore. Medicaid is the major funding source for long-term care. If a person consumes his financial assets and his income is low enough, he qualifies for Medicaid coverage. Medicaid paid $60 billion for long term care in 2002. An increasing number of persons are transferring their assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. Their children receive their assets, and the taxpayers pay the bill for their care. Medicaid has become an inheritance protection plan. Enforcement of filial responsibility statutes could bring a stop to this.

Ouch

Here is an idea that has been put forward: Allow states to consider an adult child able to pay toward care of an indigent parent unless the child files a public notice that they are not responsible for the debts of the parent, foreswears any inheritance rights and consents to the revocation of any trust set up for their benefit by the parent.

But maybe the carrot works better than the stick. Look at what Korea has done: Since 1999, children who live with and support the parents get more inheritance. A person who has supported his or her parent for a considerable time will get 50% more added to his or her share of inheritance. This is called the "filial piety inheritance system."

[decknrckngchir]

Thanks Mathjak. I did make a few phone calls and it was suggested that for now I let my fingers do the walking. It becomes a tangled mess when there is no POA and the parent has assets. Live and learn, what not to do or leave for my children to clean up. On a bright note, it is a beautiful day!