This is how conspiracys start, a little rumor or fake news, blows up to be this unbelievable crazy stuff that people actually believe.
Someone told me recently that in NYS you can legally kill your baby up to like 6 months old. I walked away because he wasn't worth my energy. Nothing would of convinced him that he was, SO WRONG
Again, other than EXTRAORDINARY cases this is NOT happening. This is just scare-porn in my humble opinion. Children are not being held accountable to pay for parent's care in the USA except in cases rare as hens teeth. In fact MUCH more rare than teeth on a hen.
Filial responsibility laws are statutes that impose a duty upon adult children to care for their indigent parents. These laws have been part of U.S. legal frameworks for centuries, but their enforcement has historically been inconsistent and rare. However, there is a recent trend where some states are beginning to more actively enforce these laws. This resurgence is driven by several factors, including:
Rising Healthcare Costs: With the increasing cost of long-term care and medical expenses, states are looking for ways to reduce the financial burden on public welfare systems. By enforcing filial responsibility laws, states aim to shift some of these costs to the family members of elderly individuals who cannot afford care on their own.
Aging Population: As the U.S. population ages, more individuals are requiring expensive care. This demographic shift puts additional strain on Medicaid and other state-funded programs, prompting states to consider all available legal avenues to recoup expenses.
State Budget Pressures: Many states are facing budgetary constraints and deficits. Enforcing filial laws can be a strategy to alleviate some of these financial pressures by holding family members accountable for the care costs of their parents.
Legal Precedents and Cases: Recent high-profile legal cases have brought attention to these laws, setting precedents that encourage more active enforcement. For instance, some courts have ruled in favor of healthcare providers seeking reimbursement from the children of elderly patients for unpaid bills.
Public Awareness and Ethical Considerations: There is growing awareness and debate over the ethical implications of filial responsibility laws. Supporters argue that these laws reinforce familial bonds and moral obligations, while critics contend that they can unfairly penalize adult children who may already be facing financial difficulties.
Despite the renewed interest, the enforcement of filial responsibility laws varies widely across states. Some states have robust statutes with clear enforcement mechanisms, while others have outdated laws that are seldom applied. States like Pennsylvania have been more active in utilizing these laws, while others are considering revisiting and updating their legislation to address modern challenges.
Overall, the trend towards enforcing filial responsibility laws reflects broader societal and economic pressures. As states grapple with the financial realities of an aging population, the role of family in supporting elder care is likely to remain a significant and contentious issue.
Spot on JoAnn - if someone is retired, and has savings they have saved up for THEIR OWN long term care, but their parent is still alive, they should not be forced to use their own savings that is needed for their own care to spend on the living parent.
"It makes those with financial means legally responsible for nursing home, medical and other bills of destitute family members, including aging parents, adult children and a spouse."
THOSE WITH MEANS. We were retired when we took in Mom. Our monthly income is not enough to supportbmore than two. And will be even less if one of us dies. What money has been put aside is for our future care and that is not much. Those people who play major sports and actors can afford to pay for a parents care. But you can't impoverish one generation to take care of another. And that woman who was in a car accident, for her to fly back to Greece she must not have been a citizen. I feel she went back feeling she would get out of paying that bill. Well it fell onto her son who was found to have the means to pay. These lawscare not meant to impoverish. They are meant for people who can pay take on the responsibility.
I think its awful that one child out of 4 goesvin debt to care for a parent while the rest go free. There should be adult support services. Its determined by the court system what the other 3 can contribute to the parents care. Spouses are immune because its not their parent.
Some state Medicaids do stipulate that after death, they will take back money from the estate. but aside from Medicaid saying such things, is their any evidence of any state requiring family members to contribute while the person is still alive?
Otherwise, it’s news that is pure speculation and sensationalism. They make up stories to sell false allegations.
I love to see the rag tabloids being sued!
I remember when Carol Burnett sued The National Enquirer for claiming that she was drunk at a dinner party where she met Henry Kissinger. She won her case!
Carol Burnett opened the door up for others to sue. Celebrities don’t need the money. It’s a matter of principle.
The news loves to scare people, it's how they get ratings
If I see something on the news that is woresome, I look for more info or just wait a few days see if there are more reports on it . If nothing else ever pops up I forget it.
To me this and other articles are scare porn. So forbes managed to find in the United States of America, in one state, PA, two instances where family was put on the hook to pay some amount. TWO. And one wasn't even about children responsible for parents. It was about PARENTS responsible to a grown disabled son.
So I think this isn't happening. Sorry. Just will not be happening. In five years on AC we have NEVER seen a case where children were forced under filial laws to support parents. Not one single time.
These laws should be off the books. But so should other antiquated laws. They can be found online easily if you google "antiquated laws still on the books". You will get the fifty strangest or the 17 silly laws, and so on. They are there, and shouldn't be. But they aren't inforced, and I think such articles serve the same purpose that that silly make for TV (bad) movie about Fiduciary embezzling from Nursing Home patients. It causes conspiracy chatter.
Anyone worrying about filial law coming to empty out their 70,000 in savings is worrying about the wrong thing.
Someone told me recently that in NYS you can legally kill your baby up to like 6 months old. I walked away because he wasn't worth my energy. Nothing would of convinced him that he was, SO WRONG
This is just scare-porn in my humble opinion.
Children are not being held accountable to pay for parent's care in the USA except in cases rare as hens teeth. In fact MUCH more rare than teeth on a hen.
Rising Healthcare Costs: With the increasing cost of long-term care and medical expenses, states are looking for ways to reduce the financial burden on public welfare systems. By enforcing filial responsibility laws, states aim to shift some of these costs to the family members of elderly individuals who cannot afford care on their own.
Aging Population: As the U.S. population ages, more individuals are requiring expensive care. This demographic shift puts additional strain on Medicaid and other state-funded programs, prompting states to consider all available legal avenues to recoup expenses.
State Budget Pressures: Many states are facing budgetary constraints and deficits. Enforcing filial laws can be a strategy to alleviate some of these financial pressures by holding family members accountable for the care costs of their parents.
Legal Precedents and Cases: Recent high-profile legal cases have brought attention to these laws, setting precedents that encourage more active enforcement. For instance, some courts have ruled in favor of healthcare providers seeking reimbursement from the children of elderly patients for unpaid bills.
Public Awareness and Ethical Considerations: There is growing awareness and debate over the ethical implications of filial responsibility laws. Supporters argue that these laws reinforce familial bonds and moral obligations, while critics contend that they can unfairly penalize adult children who may already be facing financial difficulties.
Despite the renewed interest, the enforcement of filial responsibility laws varies widely across states. Some states have robust statutes with clear enforcement mechanisms, while others have outdated laws that are seldom applied. States like Pennsylvania have been more active in utilizing these laws, while others are considering revisiting and updating their legislation to address modern challenges.
Overall, the trend towards enforcing filial responsibility laws reflects broader societal and economic pressures. As states grapple with the financial realities of an aging population, the role of family in supporting elder care is likely to remain a significant and contentious issue.
THOSE WITH MEANS. We were retired when we took in Mom. Our monthly income is not enough to supportbmore than two. And will be even less if one of us dies. What money has been put aside is for our future care and that is not much. Those people who play major sports and actors can afford to pay for a parents care. But you can't impoverish one generation to take care of another. And that woman who was in a car accident, for her to fly back to Greece she must not have been a citizen. I feel she went back feeling she would get out of paying that bill. Well it fell onto her son who was found to have the means to pay. These lawscare not meant to impoverish. They are meant for people who can pay take on the responsibility.
I think its awful that one child out of 4 goesvin debt to care for a parent while the rest go free. There should be adult support services. Its determined by the court system what the other 3 can contribute to the parents care. Spouses are immune because its not their parent.
but aside from Medicaid saying such things, is their any evidence of any state requiring family members to contribute while the person is still alive?
Otherwise, it’s news that is pure speculation and sensationalism. They make up stories to sell false allegations.
I love to see the rag tabloids being sued!
I remember when Carol Burnett sued The National Enquirer for claiming that she was drunk at a dinner party where she met Henry Kissinger. She won her case!
Carol Burnett opened the door up for others to sue. Celebrities don’t need the money. It’s a matter of principle.
If I see something on the news that is woresome, I look for more info or just wait a few days see if there are more reports on it . If nothing else ever pops up I forget it.
Let’s hope that this wouldn’t occur. It would be a nightmare.
The same is true for forced heirship. A long time ago forced heirship was legal in our state. It was voted out.
So forbes managed to find in the United States of America, in one state, PA, two instances where family was put on the hook to pay some amount. TWO.
And one wasn't even about children responsible for parents. It was about PARENTS responsible to a grown disabled son.
So I think this isn't happening. Sorry. Just will not be happening.
In five years on AC we have NEVER seen a case where children were forced under filial laws to support parents. Not one single time.
These laws should be off the books. But so should other antiquated laws. They can be found online easily if you google "antiquated laws still on the books". You will get the fifty strangest or the 17 silly laws, and so on. They are there, and shouldn't be. But they aren't inforced, and I think such articles serve the same purpose that that silly make for TV (bad) movie about Fiduciary embezzling from Nursing Home patients. It causes conspiracy chatter.
Anyone worrying about filial law coming to empty out their 70,000 in savings is worrying about the wrong thing.