As I clutched my first cup of coffee on Saturday morning I found the following in my email box. I've edited out identifying information and the irrelevant introductory stuff:


I am a grad student...doing a project on the abandonment of the elderly by their children.

A state senator has introduced a bill to our State Legislature which would make this against the law with fines and/or imprisonment. I am writing you to ask if you know of any other places, cities, towns or states, that are doing or have done the same thing. Any help you could provide me on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

Well, after another couple of cups of coffee and some electronic backing and forthing, here is how I summarized my thoughts about this pending legislation:

I have read that several states have un-enforced legislation on the books about children's financial obligations to their parents, but to my knowledge no one has vigorously pursued "abandonment" on a broad level. I don't think laws like this are enforceable, but I haven't researched this in depth.

The whole idea, frankly, scares me to death. I don't see any way such laws can ever do what their originators probably intended. If an adult child does not have the authority to enforce, there is no way that child can be responsible for a parent. I see too many situations where the adult child truly does have the best interests of a parent at heart, but the parent has other ideas.

Or, on the other side of the coin, the children's motives are suspicious, and thank goodness they DON'T have the authority to enforce.

If a "legally competent" adult chooses to live in filth, spends his or her money on the "wrong" things and therefore has no money for food and shelter, drinks himself to death, ad infinitum with possibilities, then the adult-child-without-authority can certainly not be held responsible.

And, in the case of a legally appointed guardian, the laws are specific that a guardian cannot be REQUIRED to use his or her own financial resources to support the senior.

Yes, certainly, there are adult children who have the means to provide for their parents. Many of them do...often in spite of parents who make it as hard as possible, emotionally and physically, for their children to do the right thing. Some grown children have had to reluctantly walk away from their parents in order to preserve their own sanity and the security of their families.

We cannot ask grown children to assume responsibility for their parents without giving them the legal authority to do so. There lies the rub, and that is what guardianships are for.
Fortunately, our Courts are very reluctant to strip any adult of his rights, so guardianships are difficult to get. And so it should be.

If the Senator's bill proposes that no adult may legally walk away from a senior in jeopardy without making a report to the state-designated authorities (Adult Protective Services, or whatever the nomenclature may be in your State), then those laws already exist. No new legislation is required.

However, the Senator needs to understand that even APS cannot intervene if an adult is "legally competent," not in a life-threatening situation, and tells the agency to "get lost."

Until a child reaches the legal age of adulthood or emancipation, a parent is responsible for his child. The day that child becomes a legal adult, he or she assumes total legal responsibility for choices made.

The parent no longer has authority or legal responsibility for that child (assuming no guardianship, in which case the person under guardianship has already had his or her rights of independence stripped by a court). The parent cannot be legally pursued if the "child" commits a crime, is homeless, etc. etc. (Thank goodness, or our prisons would be four or five times as full as they are.)

At what point does the Senator believe it would be appropriate to strip our seniors of those adult rights, and return them to the status of legal wards of their grown children? Age 65? Age 70? Age 85?

Ethical and/or moral responsibility is one thing. I believe most adult children do try to honor their ethical and moral responsibilities to the degree they can. Legal responsibility is another animal completely. Legal responsibility of one adult for another adult is something we should be very, very careful about trying to impose. I honestly don't think the Supremes would find it constitutional.

Molly

P.S. - Some interesting examples I've witnessed:

1. "Dad" has sufficient money to pay for 24-hour live-in care at home, and is doing this. The adult child is appalled at the "waste" of money and wants to force Dad into a nursing home, which would cost only half as much as the home care - thus conserving a bundle of money for the child to potentially inherit. Adult child says that Dad is making foolish financial decisions and putting himself at "financial risk."

Which may be. It certainly will exhaust his money sooner rather than later. Would the Senator give the adult child the right to force Dad into a nursing home to conserve resources?
The Court apparently didn't think this was a particularly good idea, and refused to grant the son guardianship or conservatorship over the funds. The money belongs to Dad and is his to "squander" on his choice of care, or to save.

2. "Mom" lives in a house you would see on the news, crammed beyond imagination with junk. Daughter has tried for years to get the house cleaned out, and later to get her mother to move to a senior residence. To no avail. The daughter has called adult protective services, the neighbors have called, I have called.

Each time APS visits, the mother refuses assistance. She is not ill, has enough to eat, and the house is warm, so APS leaves.

Everyone has advised the daughter that her only recourse is to wait until her mother has a crisis, at which time the daughter may have the opportunity to force a change. Or not.
Would the Senator's proposed law haul the daughter into court and fine her/imprison her because her mother chooses to live like this, is legally competent, and subsequently trips over her junk and breaks a leg?

3. "Dad" was a highly educated college professor with a terrific spending problem. He spent his salary, a very large inheritance, and what little savings he had on world travel and buying overpriced "stuff." He ultimately lost his home, and  finally died nearly penniless in a shack.
Son helped him out financially many, many times over the years, only to see his financial contributions squandered again and again. Son finally threw up his hands and focused on rearing and educating his own children. Son had to pay to bury his father...his final contribution.

Anyone looking at "the Professor" from the outside would think that the son cruelly abandoned his father. They would not see the years and years of help that went for naught.

The professor was my uncle.

Sincerely,

Molly