Filial Responsibility Law

Question

Filial Responsibility Law

Follow

Share

I live in PA where this law is still on the books. It should be repealed, as so many other states have already done. If you are a PA resident, please contact your state representative and request they work to repeal this unfair law. A bill was introduced a couple of years ago to repeal the law and that bill is just sitting there with no action or vote. Children have no legal say in what their parents do with their money as long as they are of sound mind. Parents can squander it all away and the children could still be held responsible in the end. There is nothing fair about that! A court would decide to what extent the children are responsible....but that alone may be costly for the children (court dates, attorney fees, missed work, etc.). It should not even be an issue, period. This archaic law should be repealed in every state.

Elder Law Family Caregiver Paying for Care

This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.

6 Answers

Most
Helpful Newest
First Oldest
First

This was the case in PA that started it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pennsylvania-son-stuck-moms-93000-nursing-home-bill/story?id=16405807

NJ has a pretty stout law too. The American Legislative Exchange Council has been lobbying several states to get legislation on the books and passed for this as an alternative to expanding Medicaid. They tried in this state and failed. But not by much.

Helpful Answer (2)

Report

I agree. Its an old law. But what I have read, children who don't have the money aren't asked t pay the debt.

The case they talk about where the parent owed 93,000 and went back to home country sounds fishy to me. If she could go back that easily, she wasn't a permenant resident and didn't qualify for any services like Medicaid. I think a fraud was committed and the son had the money to pay it.

I live in NJ and have never heard of children being held for parents medical debts.

Helpful Answer (1)

Report

There are several interesting filial law cases. Look at the case Eori vs Eori. This was a sibling who sued his other siblings under filial law so that they would help pay for the cost of their mother’s round the clock care. The sibling who sued won and the others had to pay $400 a month each even though their mom wasn’t destitute. There’s another one, I forget the name but it was a father with young children who’s income was around $2400 and who’s monthly expenses was around $2350, and he was ordered to pay $125 month towards his mother’s care! You don’t have to be wealthy in order to be a victim of filial law.

melmark vs shutt involves a couple from NJ and their disabled son living in PA. PA Supreme Court ruled that PA law applies and the parents have to provide support for their son. Under NJ law since they are over 55, they wouldn’t have had to support him.

(2)

Report

This is coming. You,look at the numbers of boomers. The numbers who will have dementia. Now if you are a state legislator and the nursing home and long term care lobbies are funding your campaign, well.. It's math.

And politics. How can you use other people's money.

Helpful Answer (1)

Report

Interesting article on this
https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-filial-support-20130401-story.html

Also have you been reading about the hybrid LTC policy? Ties whole life insurance policy to LTC. Have to,pass test first in many instances.

Helpful Answer (0)

Report

Good article but there is more to that case. I think the mother was here on a Visa and not a Greencard. If a Greencard then she hadn't been here the five years needed to get US benefits. 93k means she was in the NH maybe nine months. It does not take that long to apply for Medicaid and get approved. She left the US knowing she had this debt. It may be an innocent circumstance but I can see the son becoming liable. I also think he should have been allowed to make payments. Or secure a loan with his business as collateral. There is something they are not telling us.

(1)

Report

When my FIL died in December we discovered they were living beyond their means is an opulent 2 bedroom, 2 bath, $3900. per month apartment. Then, we discovered that either my MIL lied about their assets or she was scammed out of over $50,000. because it was missing after FIL died. She was always falling for scammers from Jamaica and we have no idea how much she may have lost because the LAWS said we could not monitor and take over their finances to insure they have enough to last until the end of their natural lives. Now...if my MIL's money runs out and she becomes homeless, WE are required to provide for her??? If we have no say in how they squander their money, how in the world is it constitutional that we have to provide for them when the money is gone? My DH and I are retired. My DH is having his own health issues, being monitored for Dementia by a neurologist and some other things. He is the only child. He worked very hard to save for his retirement and to think he may have to be responsible for his mother....who never really did a thing for him...is outrageous. Whether he would or would not have to provide for her would be up to a judge and their personal perspective and opinion. She is 92 and still fairly independent and now living in a studio apartment in the same retirement community she lived in with my FIL....still very expensive but still she refuses to move. Her income does not meet her rent and expenses so she is spending down her small savings. What happens when that is gone...who knows...but she is NOT living with us. (We have been married for only 5 years.) The law needs to be repealed...or new laws should be put in place so that children have a say in their parents' finances in their senior years so they can plan for the money and income to last.

Helpful Answer (0)

Report

I agree with you 100%. Children of parents who squandered away their assets should not be held financially responsible for them. My state does have filial law on the book but not like PAs. My FIL “retired” on nothing but a social security check. He CHOSE not to contribute to a retirement plan, he CHOSE not to save his money over the years. I was shocked to find out that he retired on only a $1300 social security check and had nearly $800 worth of bills that we know of. There could be more. His truck payment was $600 (utterly ridiculous and down right foolish for someone living off $1300 a month), $50 cell phone bill and a $125-ish copay to the VA. Those bills were on auto pay so we saw them on his last bank statement. We don’t know what other bills he may have been paying. Anyway, I would have had a stroke if filial laws forced us all to pay for his care! No one should suffer financially because their parents made bad decisions!

(1)

Report

I agree, we should not be responsible for parents who squander their money. Monica, I don't think under the circumstances u would be asked to care for Mom. There are alternatives for her care. She can get a cheaper apartment for one. Maybe even in a low income senior building. Help with utilities and food. But then, with DH diagnosis, he can't be held responsible and she isn't u blood relative. If things get bad, u may just have to let the state become her guardian. You have enough on ur plate.

I do agree, the laws are going to have to change. Its not just being a baby boomer, its that our children may not be able to get jobs to support themselves, let alone parents. Its definitely going to take two salaries to live. My future if my DH goes before me, my daughter and maybe grandson moving in. I have the room. I think this is going to be the trend. Also, with the government cuts, more people caring for LOs in their homes. I will make it as easy as I can for my girls but u just don't know.

It has been said, that the boomers are not going to live as long as our parents. We have not taken care of ourselves.

Helpful Answer (1)

Report

This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.

Filial Responsibility Law

6 Answers

Recent Questions

Popular Questions

Related Questions