posted on August 4, 2001 08:29:07 AM new
I'll wager that would only happen in California...can you imagine the trumped up stories of abuse that would be plied upon the courts if this were to be accepted nationwide.
Doesn't California have a statute on the books about children being responsible financially for their widowed mothers ad in finitum? Seems to me we had a foster mother her in Mass. that applied to adopt her foster son when he was 18, then moved to California, she told friends he would have to take care of her out there. (She was widowed)
posted on August 4, 2001 08:55:12 AM new"Doesn't California have a statute on the books about children being responsible financially for their widowed mothers ad in finitum?"
posted on August 4, 2001 09:35:11 AM new"In June, Culp filed the lawsuit against his parents for monthly expenses amounting to more than $11,000, which included college tuition for his children and several thousand dollars in medical expenses."
This is from the linked article...Now, if a parent is suppose to support their children (regardless of age) if they are mentally or physically unable to support themselves, then isn't this dad facing the possibility of having to support his children somewhere down the line??? Afterall, being raised by a mentally ill person most probably would have long lasting affects on the off spring (or so their attorney could argue)...So, if his kids take him to court and win, and since he took his folks to court and won, then does that mean Grandma and Grandpa get to "support" all the future generations of their family "branch"????? Well, at least 'till the get a reprieve by dying?
Talk about an argument for 0 population growth!!!!!
posted on August 4, 2001 09:45:12 AM new
sulyn1950 - Those were my thoughts exactly. Not only supporting the son, but having to pay for the grandchildren.
How in the world did this law ever get passed?
Zilvy - Doesn't California have a statute on the books about children being responsible financially for their widowed mothers ad in finitum?
I'm not sure, but I'd guess not....as our granddaughters other grandmother was paid by the state of CA to take care of her own father.
posted on August 4, 2001 09:59:59 AM new
Since so many people believe that it is the MORAL responsibility of all to care for the welfare of their family members what's wrong with a law assuring that such a morality is complied with by those in whom the VALUES are not fully instilled?
In either case; a moral compliance or a moral denial, it is the success or failure of the FAMILY structure which is the cause. To face the inevitability of a requirement for payment during life on this Earth through legal censure seems far less daunting than the alternative of inevitable censure by God the Almighty in the hereafter.
posted on August 4, 2001 10:29:36 AM new
Where is Hepburn when we need her. Maybe if the parents could move out of state they could avoid this obligation. Just send the son to camp MiniHaHA and move with no forwarding address! Sounds like a plan to me!! I am sure if the father is such a so and so he'll think of something.
posted on August 4, 2001 01:33:01 PM new
Such a judge's ruling would easily be overtunred upon appeal. There is a set time limit on parent's financial responsiblity for their children and that is that.
posted on August 4, 2001 05:44:52 PM new
I do remember a case, I can't even remember how many years ago, where the situation ran roughly thus:
Aged mom living with loser son nr. 2 in her house. California? I swear I think I remember it took place in CA. Son nr. 1, successful in another state, has strong feelings against both (hate?) and had cut off contact. No contact for a long time.
Aged mom runs into financial trouble and sues son nr 1 for support.
Aged mom wins and son has to send money even though loser son nr. 2 continues to sponge off of aged mom.
I tried to find info relevent to the case I remember, but it was a while back, and I haven't found anything so far.
I did look up support for adult children and what I found one site which stated that parents are required to continue support for children whose incapacity is demonstrated before reaching emancipation. This applies to people like my sister who is severly mentally handicapped.
After emancipation, should they be self-suporting, all bets are off.
At the end it states : Fam C §3190 provides that parents have an equal responsibility to support a child of any age "who is incapacitated from earning a living and without sufficient means." And Fam C §4001 allows the trial court to order one parent or both parents to support such a child. Note that in In re Marriage of Lambe and Meehan (1995) 37 CA4th 388, 44 CR2d 641, 1995 CFLR 6811, FIRST ALERT #F-95-711, the Fourth District held that parents of a disabled adult child cannot stipulate to divest the court of jurisdiction to award support. And in In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 CA4th 1139, 62 CR2d 466, 1997 CFLR 7517, FIRST ALERT #F-97-797, the Second District held that a father's duty to support an adult disabled child is not discharged by payments from a trust that the mother established for the child. ••
So like many other family law cases, it depends on where you live. But in CA, emancipation does not count, no matter how long it lasted, if the adult child has become incapicated. I found lots of references to that.
[ edited by victoria on Aug 4, 2001 06:14 PM ]
Under Georgia law, an adult child may be legally obligated to support his or her indigent parent where the adult child has sufficient income and the parents is destitute; however, such support cannot be enforced against the adult child where a female parent has a husband who has the duty and ability to support her.
Failure to Provide: (FTP) The non-response of a parent to provide to a minor or for an adult offspring to provide income, support, housing to an indigent parent.
In some jurisdictions, there are statutes imposing on adult children, to the extent of their ability, the duty to support indigent parents. Currently, twenty-six states have statutes that consider it adult children's duty to provide for their indigent parents.
Here's another relating to California. Ypu have to view the cached version.
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.legalservicesforseniors.org/Articles/a_childs%20duty%20to%20care%20for%20their%20parents.htm.
It states in part: California's Civil Code addresses this question, where it states: "(I)t is the duty of the father, the mother and the children of any person in need who is unable to maintain himself by work, to maintain such person to the extent of their ability."
California courts interpret this section to impose upon an adult child the legal obligation to support an indigent parent. For this law to apply, the parents must be financially unable to support themselves. Additionally, a child is only obligated to assist the parent if the child has the financial ability to do so.
posted on August 4, 2001 08:13:28 PM new
However indigency in and of itself does not define an ability to support and cases have been made for children able to show that an indigent parent was such by failure to support themselves when able to do so.
posted on August 4, 2001 08:36:28 PM newCalifornia courts interpret this section to impose upon an adult child the legal obligation to support an indigent parent. For this law to apply, the parents must be financially unable to support themselves. Additionally, a child is only obligated to assist the parent if the child has the financial ability to do so.
That must have been what this woman I mentioned was looking to do, she was in her 70's had been widowed for 30 years and had taken in foster children, then adopted this strapping young man when he turned 18 and moved to California, for the purpose of having him responsible for her welfare. It worked whether it was law or not, I know cause my cousin did not accept his marriage proposal due to the living circumstances. Good thing his Adopted mom lived to 96...he is still single and very old.
posted on August 5, 2001 12:11:01 AM new
I admit that the tone of this thread surprises me--and says something about our society as well.
Deadbeat offspring looking for a free ride and healthy self-sufficient elders can & should look after themselves. In the case of deadbead children, especially, I'd be the first to give them the boot.
But what has happened to our society that no obligation seems to be felt to care for the elderly or incapacitated (mentally or physically) relatives? To the point that *courts* have to tell us our responsibilities?
If you had an adult child who was crippled would you say "Sorry--he/she's over 18 and isn't my responsibilty any more"? Walk away from an infirm parent and have no hand in caring for them (even if only to find a decent rest home & make sure costs are paid)?
It's a sad thing that laws have to be passed about something that should be fundamental.
posted on August 5, 2001 04:13:26 AM new
It may seem fundamental, but some people have escaped from horrible abusive homes and don't need the court imposing the care of their tormentors on them.
posted on August 5, 2001 06:24:22 AM new"If you had an adult child who was crippled would you say "Sorry--he/she's over 18 and isn't my responsibilty any more"? Walk away from an infirm parent and have no hand in caring for them (even if only to find a decent rest home & make sure costs are paid)?
and it's quite common that both scenarios play, showing just how far into selfishness and greed people can decline. As you know, it's a Republican Manifesto in this country, a credo, and is simple immorality in other places.
posted on August 5, 2001 06:55:19 AM new bunnicula
<<quote
But what has happened to our society that no obligation seems to be felt to care for the elderly or incapacitated (mentally or physically) relatives? To the point that *courts* have to tell us our responsibilities?
<<end quote
What has happened to our society that shifts all responsibility of care for the elderly or incapacitated to relatives? I know a story of a child who was addicted to drugs and severely depressed at the same time. The parents wanted to help but could not afford the tremendous fee for psychiatric care and residential treatment. They were told that the only way that they could get help for their child was to disown the child or have the clild declared out of control so that the child could be removed from the family and become a ward of the court.
Or, it would be helpful if the child could be a criminal.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OUR SOCIETY? That is a dam good question. But your focus on the relatives and their responsibilities is not always the answer.
I have a daughter who has traveled all over the world as part of her job to observe health care systems. Based on what she has told me, and my personal experience,
the American system is a failure.
posted on August 5, 2001 09:33:58 AM newREALLY, a Republican Manifesto?
Caring is a responsibility, and knows no partisanship! It is a personal, moral, ethical and financialconsideration. I am sure there are those who would do everything in their power to assist either a child or needy adult, but, let's address the fact that not everyone has the financial means to do it.
[ edited by ZiLvY on Aug 5, 2001 09:35 AM ]
posted on August 5, 2001 09:48:52 AM new
Yep. a manifestation of the "more for me, the heck with you" credo expressed here and everywhere by the republican dogma related to taxes, welfare, and aid to other less prosperous countries and peoples.
posted on August 5, 2001 10:04:34 AM newA PARABLE On a nature trail near my home they have erected a little protective gazebo where they show various indigenous plants, and animals. They did not, however, mention the coyotes. I asked one of the selectmen about the lack of warning. He said, with a chuckle "Oh, there is protective spray to keep them away from an individual." I asked it the "Spray" was when an unwary individual came upon the coyote and wet themselves....the coyote would go "ewww" and leave?
Well, I was wondering if there was an equally potent spray to keep Political Pundits out of every bloomin thread that has nothing to do with politics? Just a PONDERMENT?
posted on August 5, 2001 10:17:01 AM newCaring is a responsibility (I agree with that) and I also see it as a privilege. We have been very blessed in our lifetime. We have and would continue to help any family member or friend that needed our help, in what ever way we could.
They are our family. That means something to us. Each has brought something wonderful into our lives and I do feel the personal responsibility to do what we can.
Do I think doing so should be regulated by law? No.
posted on August 5, 2001 10:20:15 AM new
Is it China where all adult children revere their parents and take care of them financially? I think so. I think its pretty bad that courts have to tell someone to take care of their own. Its also sad that some cant get help without disowning the family member to GET help from the government.
posted on August 5, 2001 10:44:14 AM new
Would that there were such a spray as the political punditry would have been eradicated after the second post to the thread which was:
"I'll wager that would only happen in California...can you imagine the trumped up stories of abuse that would be plied upon the courts if this were to be accepted nationwide"
..a clear commentary in derision about the politial climes of a political entity.
