Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading this thread I find this whole idea scary, especially for those with little or no relationship with their distant/abusive/mentally ill/hoarding etc. parents. I wonder what's next -- if states are holding people accountable for the financial situations of parents with whom they have no relationship or even no contact at all, will states next turn to holding people similarly accountable for the bills and expenses of siblings, for instance? Or adult children with whom the parent has had no contact?

I hope that an elder care lawyer will somehow see this thread and post here. Thanks to the other lawyer who posted, BTW.

Everyone really needs to take a deep breath. Filial support laws are generally meant to be used against adult children who have taken control of their parents' assets, usually for the explicit purpose of shielding those assets from eldercare expenses.

Hey, deep breath lady, seriously, stop posting that. You're incorrect. The stories out of PA make it completely clear that this is NOT just an issue of preventing the transfer of wealth to qualify the elderly parents for medicaid but the actual suing of children for care they never signed on for - even absent any such transfer of money or even contact in some cases.

Please, before you patronize, at least do a courtesy google search.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone actually read the PA case? http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/A36025_11.pdf . it seems the PA man who was found liable for his mother's health care expenses didn't do a good job arguing his case. It seems he provided little proof that he was unable to pay his mother's expenses.

We recently went through something similar where my DH was sued by a service provider who provided in-home care for his father. Although the company didn't cite filial responsibility law as the basis for suing DH, I don't believe it would have been difficult (after reading the PA case) for us to establish that we were not able to pay for his care. In the PA case, the suing company provided like 5 years of tax returns of the man they were suing. He said there was no consideration of his own bills he needed to pay but he didn't provide any of those bills. It sounds like he did nothing to prove his point and his appeal was denied because there was no error in application of judgment in light of the law. You can't get an appeal on the basis of lack of effort.

The point is less about how he lost the case due to lack of a good defense, paperwork. The point is how someone can be made to be responsible for someone else's bills. PERIOD.END OF STORY.

I see you're still not understanding. It's already well established a large number of states have filial responsibility laws. To kick in, a plaintiff has to show a defendant has the means to pay for parental care. That's HOW someone can be made responsible for parental care. To avoid being made responsible for parental care, you need to establish inability to pay. Clear?

If you're unclear on how laws are made, I suggest you google "how laws are made in [fill in state]".

UHHH... I think you are mistaken . I understand HOW laws are made, my point is that these are effed up laws!!!
They should not exist, therefore forcing any child to prove anything.
OVERSTAND YET??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone actually read the PA case? http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/A36025_11.pdf . it seems the PA man who was found liable for his mother's health care expenses didn't do a good job arguing his case. It seems he provided little proof that he was unable to pay his mother's expenses.

We recently went through something similar where my DH was sued by a service provider who provided in-home care for his father. Although the company didn't cite filial responsibility law as the basis for suing DH, I don't believe it would have been difficult (after reading the PA case) for us to establish that we were not able to pay for his care. In the PA case, the suing company provided like 5 years of tax returns of the man they were suing. He said there was no consideration of his own bills he needed to pay but he didn't provide any of those bills. It sounds like he did nothing to prove his point and his appeal was denied because there was no error in application of judgment in light of the law. You can't get an appeal on the basis of lack of effort.

The point is less about how he lost the case due to lack of a good defense, paperwork. The point is how someone can be made to be responsible for someone else's bills. PERIOD.END OF STORY.

I see you're still not understanding. It's already well established a large number of states have filial responsibility laws. To kick in, a plaintiff has to show a defendant has the means to pay for parental care. That's HOW someone can be made responsible for parental care. To avoid being made responsible for parental care, you need to establish inability to pay. Clear?

If you're unclear on how laws are made, I suggest you google "how laws are made in [fill in state]".

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone actually read the PA case? http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/A36025_11.pdf . it seems the PA man who was found liable for his mother's health care expenses didn't do a good job arguing his case. It seems he provided little proof that he was unable to pay his mother's expenses.

We recently went through something similar where my DH was sued by a service provider who provided in-home care for his father. Although the company didn't cite filial responsibility law as the basis for suing DH, I don't believe it would have been difficult (after reading the PA case) for us to establish that we were not able to pay for his care. In the PA case, the suing company provided like 5 years of tax returns of the man they were suing. He said there was no consideration of his own bills he needed to pay but he didn't provide any of those bills. It sounds like he did nothing to prove his point and his appeal was denied because there was no error in application of judgment in light of the law. You can't get an appeal on the basis of lack of effort.

The point is less about how he lost the case due to lack of a good defense, paperwork. The point is how someone can be made to be responsible for someone else's bills. PERIOD.END OF STORY.

Anonymous wrote:After reading this thread I find this whole idea scary, especially for those with little or no relationship with their distant/abusive/mentally ill/hoarding etc. parents. I wonder what's next -- if states are holding people accountable for the financial situations of parents with whom they have no relationship or even no contact at all, will states next turn to holding people similarly accountable for the bills and expenses of siblings, for instance? Or adult children with whom the parent has had no contact?

I hope that an elder care lawyer will somehow see this thread and post here. Thanks to the other lawyer who posted, BTW.

Everyone really needs to take a deep breath. Filial support laws are generally meant to be used against adult children who have taken control of their parents' assets, usually for the explicit purpose of shielding those assets from eldercare expenses.

After reading this thread I find this whole idea scary, especially for those with little or no relationship with their distant/abusive/mentally ill/hoarding etc. parents. I wonder what's next -- if states are holding people accountable for the financial situations of parents with whom they have no relationship or even no contact at all, will states next turn to holding people similarly accountable for the bills and expenses of siblings, for instance? Or adult children with whom the parent has had no contact?

I hope that an elder care lawyer will somehow see this thread and post here. Thanks to the other lawyer who posted, BTW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ meant step-father.

Could someone really be on the hook for a stepparent's health care (absent signing a legal obligation)?

I'm the lawyer who said he didn't know and suggested an eldercare lawyer. In OP's situation, she or he said they were worried about obligation to mother and step-father - still married. If your bio-parent has died and you are concerned about your obligations to the step, I don't know the answer to that either (I'm hoping the answer is zero). This area of law is new and is, in large part, evolved because of the exposure of the hoarding problem. Counties and States do not want to deal with the issue so want to push it back onto the children. If the children live locally then authorities are trying to put the problem of care back onto the kids because the states can no longer afford to do it or house the ill or infirm for long periods of time. Also, parents are living longer and families are spread wider so local authorities are finding the elderly living in awful conditions and they want to hold someone responsible for those situations - and they look to the children. I read of one particularly awful case recently where two parents were found with bedsores so severe that the bone was exposed. In that case they were going after the children for negligence. Its a new tough area of the law which is why i suggested consutling an eldercare lawyer. Progressive states are enacting laws but I'm no expert. Some of the other posters seem to have a better sense of which state is doing what. Your particular issue will probably be determined by your parents' state laws and whether or not those obligations can extend to an adult child out of state - or, in your case, to a step-parent left behind. I'm no expert but am watching this because I have a hoarding issue in my family but my parents have not let me back in the house in two decades and I live 2500 miles away. To what extend am I responsible for a situation I am not allowed to see? I don't know but that's why I am monitoring what is happening.

OP, I feel for you. Thank you for raising this issue.

Anonymous wrote:^^ meant step-father.

Could someone really be on the hook for a stepparent's health care (absent signing a legal obligation)?

^^ meant step-father.

I'm a lawyer and I don't know the answer to this question (but would like to know the answer). I would suggest you consult an eldercare lawyer. An elderly friend of mine had to when her husband suffered a heart attack and then was put on life support for 3 months. She (the eldercare lawyer) gave her very sound advice as to how to protect her savings and house. That's not the question you asked, but there is an entire practice area out there called eldercare and I think it would be worth finding one and getting a consultation. This is a special field so please find someone with expertise in this area. Maybe some of the other lawyers can post some names. I haven't read the entire thread. If you haven't mentioned it yet, post your state of residence and your mother and father-in-law's state of residence. One of them will determine your obligation.

Has anyone actually read the PA case? http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/A36025_11.pdf . it seems the PA man who was found liable for his mother's health care expenses didn't do a good job arguing his case. It seems he provided little proof that he was unable to pay his mother's expenses.

We recently went through something similar where my DH was sued by a service provider who provided in-home care for his father. Although the company didn't cite filial responsibility law as the basis for suing DH, I don't believe it would have been difficult (after reading the PA case) for us to establish that we were not able to pay for his care. In the PA case, the suing company provided like 5 years of tax returns of the man they were suing. He said there was no consideration of his own bills he needed to pay but he didn't provide any of those bills. It sounds like he did nothing to prove his point and his appeal was denied because there was no error in application of judgment in light of the law. You can't get an appeal on the basis of lack of effort.

Anonymous wrote:I just looked it up and you pay for the nursing home until the money runs out and then Medicaid kicks in. Are the lawsuits because Medicaid didn't pay?

You are mistaken. You have to apply for Medicaid, it is not a right that kicks in.
you are way off base.

Anonymous wrote:I just looked it up and you pay for the nursing home until the money runs out and then Medicaid kicks in. Are the lawsuits because Medicaid didn't pay?

Nothing kicks in
You have to APPLY!
My parent was DENIED, finances and paperwork were a mess and could not prove he had no assets.
Parent died months ago, guess who the nursing home is billing and calling.
Parent lived in PA by the way.
It is crazy, thus parent was IRRESPONSIBLE THEIR ENTIRE ADULT LIFE.
Very sad all around.

That's it. I'm definitely retiring to Hawaii!