Anonymous wrote:

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??

I understand now - English must not be your first language. When you asked 'how' the laws were made, well, I thought you didn't know. Your "OVERSTAND YET??" is incorrect. It's 'understand' not 'overstand'. Also, typing in all caps is considered shouting. That may be acceptable in your culture but it's generally considered impolite in American culture. Also, given your language challenges, you really shouldn't be so rude to people who misunderstand you.

LOL!
You funny -- me sorry I speaky no English good for you.
OVERSTAND:
to understand something so completely that one "over"-stands.
I overstand the situation, my friend.
See more words with the same meaning: to understand.
Last edited on Dec 27 2002. Submitted by Rudy from Toronto, ON, Canada on Dec 27 2002.

NP here. I've never heard of the word "overstand" and googled it. There are very few entries for it and none of them have anything to do with 'understand'. It looks like "Rudy from Toronto" made it up.

Slang lady -- gee willickers -- slang

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??

I understand now - English must not be your first language. When you asked 'how' the laws were made, well, I thought you didn't know. Your "OVERSTAND YET??" is incorrect. It's 'understand' not 'overstand'. Also, typing in all caps is considered shouting. That may be acceptable in your culture but it's generally considered impolite in American culture. Also, given your language challenges, you really shouldn't be so rude to people who misunderstand you.

LOL!
You funny -- me sorry I speaky no English good for you.
OVERSTAND:
to understand something so completely that one "over"-stands.
I overstand the situation, my friend.
See more words with the same meaning: to understand.
Last edited on Dec 27 2002. Submitted by Rudy from Toronto, ON, Canada on Dec 27 2002.

NP here. I've never heard of the word "overstand" and googled it. There are very few entries for it and none of them have anything to do with 'understand'. It looks like "Rudy from Toronto" made it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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??

I understand now - English must not be your first language. When you asked 'how' the laws were made, well, I thought you didn't know. Your "OVERSTAND YET??" is incorrect. It's 'understand' not 'overstand'. Also, typing in all caps is considered shouting. That may be acceptable in your culture but it's generally considered impolite in American culture. Also, given your language challenges, you really shouldn't be so rude to people who misunderstand you.

LOL!
You funny -- me sorry I speaky no English good for you.
OVERSTAND:
to understand something so completely that one "over"-stands.
I overstand the situation, my friend.
See more words with the same meaning: to understand.
Last edited on Dec 27 2002. Submitted by Rudy from Toronto, ON, Canada on Dec 27 2002.

Anonymous wrote:

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??

I understand now - English must not be your first language. When you asked 'how' the laws were made, well, I thought you didn't know. Your "OVERSTAND YET??" is incorrect. It's 'understand' not 'overstand'. Also, typing in all caps is considered shouting. That may be acceptable in your culture but it's generally considered impolite in American culture. Also, given your language challenges, you really shouldn't be so rude to people who misunderstand you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is sad is then folks have to pay attorney's fees to fight/defend when they are sued. Money these folks do not have.

Agree. I hope the laws are overturned and declared unconstitutional. PA is nuts but sadly, it appears that other states are beginning to do the same thing. At the same time (this is OP here) part of me wonders if these are rarities that are being talked up a bit by elder care lawyers in the hopes of more business, yet it's clear that it's happening more and more. The standard reply seems to be to consult an elder care lawyer, which is not something we have the spare cash for at this point. Nor do I have money to or think it's right that I should have to take out a life or long-term care insurance policy (would be so expensive given their age and health status) on the mother I don't have much to do with.

I'm less concerned about being on the hook for my stepparent. While not impossible, that would be a HUGE stretch of the law, I think. (Certainly, I hope). After all, I did not marry him, nor did he ever adopt me.

Not for nothing, but you live in a country that spends hundreds of billions every year in transfer payments to people you don't even know. What even gives you the slightest inkling that these laws will somehow pass when it comes to your own family members?

UHHH .. Could you please repeat the question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is sad is then folks have to pay attorney's fees to fight/defend when they are sued. Money these folks do not have.

Agree. I hope the laws are overturned and declared unconstitutional. PA is nuts but sadly, it appears that other states are beginning to do the same thing. At the same time (this is OP here) part of me wonders if these are rarities that are being talked up a bit by elder care lawyers in the hopes of more business, yet it's clear that it's happening more and more. The standard reply seems to be to consult an elder care lawyer, which is not something we have the spare cash for at this point. Nor do I have money to or think it's right that I should have to take out a life or long-term care insurance policy (would be so expensive given their age and health status) on the mother I don't have much to do with.

I'm less concerned about being on the hook for my stepparent. While not impossible, that would be a HUGE stretch of the law, I think. (Certainly, I hope). After all, I did not marry him, nor did he ever adopt me.

Not for nothing, but you live in a country that spends hundreds of billions every year in transfer payments to people you don't even know. What even gives you the slightest inkling that these laws will somehow pass when it comes to your own family members?

But if you've cut all ties, but suddenly take out a life insurance policy, does that imply some connection that doesn't exist, or some knowledge of the situation that doesn't exist? So the states lawyers could argue that by taking out the policy you were seeking to benefit from the person's death, and should therefore be responsible for their living costs?

Can anyone take out a life insurance policy on anyone else? (I"m genuinely asking these questions).

OP, I'm wondering at the culpability of your sibling in this instance. Sibling is living with mother, yes? So wouldn't they come after sibling first? (who has nothing, right). Would sibling then push them onto you, to avoid any responsibility? (oh, I've got nothing, but my sibling has a LOT of money). Is there a way to neutralize sibling?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is sad is then folks have to pay attorney's fees to fight/defend when they are sued. Money these folks do not have.

Agree. I hope the laws are overturned and declared unconstitutional. PA is nuts but sadly, it appears that other states are beginning to do the same thing. At the same time (this is OP here) part of me wonders if these are rarities that are being talked up a bit by elder care lawyers in the hopes of more business, yet it's clear that it's happening more and more. The standard reply seems to be to consult an elder care lawyer, which is not something we have the spare cash for at this point. Nor do I have money to or think it's right that I should have to take out a life or long-term care insurance policy (would be so expensive given their age and health status) on the mother I don't have much to do with.

I'm less concerned about being on the hook for my stepparent. While not impossible, that would be a HUGE stretch of the law, I think. (Certainly, I hope). After all, I did not marry him, nor did he ever adopt me.

Don't bite off your nose to spite your face. If you can get a life insurance policy on your mom -- DO IT!
My mother did this for my father (HER EX-HUSBAND) a year before he died. She did it for me and boy did it help. She was able to get a low rate despite all of my father's health issues (he died a year later). I understand not wanting to shell out money for or on someone who is fiscally irresponsible -- stories I could tell you !! But you need to think about protecting yourself against any possible FUTURE outlay of money and if you have that insurance come in -- it will help with costs. Funerals are expensive, even cremations -- think about it as insuring your finances --not giving them money. My mom was telling me to do this for years, and I was hard headed. If I had done it when she first said it -- I would have had even more bills covered!!

Anonymous wrote:What is sad is then folks have to pay attorney's fees to fight/defend when they are sued. Money these folks do not have.

Agree. I hope the laws are overturned and declared unconstitutional. PA is nuts but sadly, it appears that other states are beginning to do the same thing. At the same time (this is OP here) part of me wonders if these are rarities that are being talked up a bit by elder care lawyers in the hopes of more business, yet it's clear that it's happening more and more. The standard reply seems to be to consult an elder care lawyer, which is not something we have the spare cash for at this point. Nor do I have money to or think it's right that I should have to take out a life or long-term care insurance policy (would be so expensive given their age and health status) on the mother I don't have much to do with.

I'm less concerned about being on the hook for my stepparent. While not impossible, that would be a HUGE stretch of the law, I think. (Certainly, I hope). After all, I did not marry him, nor did he ever adopt me.

What is sad is then folks have to pay attorney's fees to fight/defend when they are sued. Money these folks do not have.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems like the laws were meant to be used against adult children who shelter/move around parental assets, but it seems eldercare providers are now realizing those laws can be used to hound adult children to collect payment once an estate is out of money.

Could some sort of "I am responsible for no one's debts except my own (and X, Y, and Z)" announcements I periodically see in the newspaper be used in the case of estranged parents?

Anonymous wrote:

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]".

Hey, dick (are you the deep breath poster?) I suggest YOU do not understand. Not the PP here but it's clear that she's not misunderstanding the law so much as reflecting on how insane it is. Even if I'm "made of money" I don't want to be on the hook for my irresponsible and abusive parent's bills - bills I have no control over and never promised to pay.

Thanks, I was the poster saying how insane the laws are.

^^ same poster. I'm not sure if it is Medicare or Medicaid but one of them lapses after 3 months (not sure, but I think that's the cut-off) because it became an issue for a senior woman friend. Her eldercare lawyer (calif.) told her to divorce her comatose husband of 50 years to save her home, car and what was left of her savings. She prepared the papers and was ready to do when when unconscious husband died in the nursing home the day before medicare/medicaid was to lapse and the full cost of his care would all fall back on her. He had been unconscious for three months and wouldn't ever recover to even know about the divorce. At first I was shocked at the recommendation but the friend was very practical and was ready to do it to preserve what little she had left. But Calif. is a community property state, which is why you really need to consult a specialist in these situations. I shouldn't joke but the line "your results may vary" just popped into my head. This is a state-by-state issue and very confusing even to regular lawyers (and don't listen to them if they try to give you advice - you need an eldercare lawyer -only they can guide you through the muck and mire). It's a new field so you may have to dig. And, no, you don't want a trusts & estate lawyer either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can this possibly be constitutional? We certainly don't require children to pay their parents' debts beyond the value of the parent's estate. Where is the incentive to behave responsibly? Heck, when your kid turns 18, could you just say you are really depressed and can't work and require them to get a job and support you?

Also, isn't it standard practice for the elderly to spend down their assets and then go on Medicare to fund nursing homes?

I know that this is what happened with my grandmother, who lives in PA. she has 7 living children, 6 of them in PA, but the state hasn't sued them for support.

Except I believe its Medicaid not Medicare that kicks in after the assets are spent down.

Correct. And Medicare doesn't cover nursing homes at all.

I thought Medicare covered for a certain no. of days - 3 months? or 180 days?

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]".

Hey, dick (are you the deep breath poster?) I suggest YOU do not understand. Not the PP here but it's clear that she's not misunderstanding the law so much as reflecting on how insane it is. Even if I'm "made of money" I don't want to be on the hook for my irresponsible and abusive parent's bills - bills I have no control over and never promised to pay.