• All threads and posts regarding Coronavirus COVID-19 can now be found in our new area specifically for Coronavirus COVID-19 discussion.

    You can directly access this area >here<.

Care Fees and Offspring.

WILLIAMR

Account Closed
Apr 12, 2014
1,078
I was talking to someone last night and he was of the view the offspring should be forced to contribute to a parents care fees and said he knew of a case where the son was a millionaire and he was making the LA pay for his parents care.
My view is the son's wealth is nothing to do with the parents care fees and that is the legal situation.
He then said the law should be changed.
If this happened I think people will not bother to get higher earning jobs if they know all their wealth could be taken for their parents care fees.
Also a million pounds is not a lot these days.
Somebody could have a house worth say £300,000. £300,000 in savings and a potential to receive a pension of £25,000 for say 20 years.
It could be argued this person was a millionaire and comfortable but he / she would not be living a champagne type life style.

William
 

BeckyJan

Registered User
Nov 28, 2005
18,972
Derbyshire
I don't know how anyone can make judgements about another's financial situation! As for children being 'forced' to pay for the care of parent/s, no one knows what is the history of a family's background. For instance, is he saying an abused child should ultimately pay for the abuser's care?

My thoughts are that each person should be responsible for themselves and today's children should, where possible, be investing in their own future care. If someone has been unable to do this then yes the authorities whether LA or NHS should assist. Those who have been responsible and managed to save will inevitably have a better choice of what care they have. That doesn't mean that LA assisted care should be inferior or of poor quality.

Personal view only!!
 

marionq

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,074
Scotland
This would never get even a hearing on the political front. If a child had to pay for their parents using up their own nest egg then who would pay for them? It's a non starter. There are lots of costs looking after a loved one and care home fees are just one part of that.
 

Pickles53

Registered User
Feb 25, 2014
2,474
Radcliffe on Trent
If this happened I think people will not bother to get higher earning jobs if they know all their wealth could be taken for their parents care fees.

Also a million pounds is not a lot these days.
Somebody could have a house worth say £300,000. £300,000 in savings and a potential to receive a pension of £25,000 for say 20 years.
It could be argued this person was a millionaire and comfortable but he / she would not be living a champagne type life style.

William
I would think there are many reasons why someone would want to rise up the career ladder and achieve a high-paying job. Apart from the job satisfaction, the higher salary would enable them and their children to enjoy a better lifestyle.

And I would just say that a million pounds is a lot of money to me. The average income is still less than £30k per year. That wouldn't generate anywhere near the level of savings and pensions in your example, however frugal you are, especially as final salary based pension schemes are increasingly a thing of the past.
 

WILLIAMR

Account Closed
Apr 12, 2014
1,078
I don't know how anyone can make judgements about another's financial situation! As for children being 'forced' to pay for the care of parent/s, no one knows what is the history of a family's background. For instance, is he saying an abused child should ultimately pay for the abuser's care?

My thoughts are that each person should be responsible for themselves and today's children should, where possible, be investing in their own future care. If someone has been unable to do this then yes the authorities whether LA or NHS should assist. Those who have been responsible and managed to save will inevitably have a better choice of what care they have. That doesn't mean that LA assisted care should be inferior or of poor quality.

Personal view only!!
Hi Becky

I am not sure they would have a better choice in every case.
Taking my step mother as an example she was violent and had an enormous amount of strength.
50 homes looked at her and only 2 could take her so we had very little choice.
That said she was CHC funded after a lot of dispute basically because she was dangerous.


William
 

LYN T

Registered User
Aug 30, 2012
6,960
Brixham Devon
I would think there are many reasons why someone would want to rise up the career ladder and achieve a high-paying job. Apart from the job satisfaction, the higher salary would enable them and their children to enjoy a better lifestyle.

And I would just say that a million pounds is a lot of money to me. The average income is still less than £30k per year. That wouldn't generate anywhere near the level of savings and pensions in your example, however frugal you are, especially as final salary based pension schemes are increasingly a thing of the past.
A lot of money for me as well Pickles.

Many people strive to do well in their careers for many different reasons; Doctors and Scientists to give a couple of examples. These people generally earn a big salary because they strive to do good and are rewarded accordingly. William, are you saying that these people wouldn't do their jobs if they had to pay for their parents care?

Personally I agree with marionq-it will never happen-unless a person chooses to do so.

Far better for each generation to take charge of their own care-as BeckyJan says- and to stop the various ways of 'protecting' the future inheritance of the upcoming generation.

Lyn T
 

Wirralson

Account Closed
May 30, 2012
658
This has been discussed on Talking Point before. As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, there is no chance of this even being suggested as a policy option in the UK. It would be electorally disastrous. 31 US States do have filial responsibility laws, as do several Canadian Provinces. The similar Scots law of aliment was formally abolished by around 1930 (I think). But it is barely workable in the US and Canada, and very limited in effect and the circumstances where those laws can be used are very limited. Any attempt to do so in the UK would probably fail on human rights grounds as well. So it's pretty pointless getting exercised about it.

W
 

Saffie

Registered User
Mar 26, 2011
22,507
Near Southampton
I agree with you Lyn. A child's money is their own and a parent's is also their own until cricumstances make a change inevitable. That is, they die and have no further need of it.

I too think a milllion pounds is an amazing amount of money.
Surely most people move up their career ladder for the sense of achievement it brings them. I can't recall my husband ever mentioning the increase in salary when he did so. Not that it wasn't welcome of course!
 
Last edited:

WILLIAMR

Account Closed
Apr 12, 2014
1,078
A lot of money for me as well Pickles.

Many people strive to do well in their careers for many different reasons; Doctors and Scientists to give a couple of examples. These people generally earn a big salary because they strive to do good and are rewarded accordingly. William, are you saying that these people wouldn't do their jobs if they had to pay for their parents care?

Personally I agree with marionq-it will never happen-unless a person chooses to do so.

Far better for each generation to take charge of their own care-as BeckyJan says- and to stop the various ways of 'protecting' the future inheritance of the upcoming generation.

Lyn T
,

Hi Lyn

As I said before my mother did not want to see the money she had earned going to another family so that is why she left her half of the bungalow to me instead of my father.
There was certainly nothing morally or legally wrong in her doing this. My father could not do anything about this in theory.
Also I don't think we could morally be held responsible for my step mother's care as she was only married to my father for 3 years.

William
 

LYN T

Registered User
Aug 30, 2012
6,960
Brixham Devon
This has been discussed on Talking Point before. As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, there is no chance of this even being suggested as a policy option in the UK. It would be electorally disastrous. 31 US States do have filial responsibility laws, as do several Canadian Provinces. The similar Scots law of aliment was formally abolished by around 1930 (I think). But it is barely workable in the US and Canada, and very limited in effect and the circumstances where those laws can be used are very limited. Any attempt to do so in the UK would probably fail on human rights grounds as well. So it's pretty pointless getting exercised about it.

W
Well you live and learn! I thought the suggestion was SO unworkable that it wouldn't be used ANYWHERE:eek:I wonder how much this law has cost in the USA and Canada? Especially as there has been limited effect.

Lyn T
 

LYN T

Registered User
Aug 30, 2012
6,960
Brixham Devon
,

Hi Lyn

As I said before my mother did not want to see the money she had earned going to another family so that is why she left her half of the bungalow to me instead of my father.
There was certainly nothing morally or legally wrong in her doing this. My father could not do anything about this in theory.
Also I don't think we could morally be held responsible for my step mother's care as she was only married to my father for 3 years.

William
William

I was in no way suggesting that people who have inherited when their parents have not been placed in a CH/NH should be disinherited-or even if they have had the parents home already 'protected' have the 'protection taken away.

I suggested-Far better for each generation to take charge of their own care-as BeckyJan says- and to stop the various ways of 'protecting' the future inheritance of the upcoming generation. Any new law which came into place regarding the bolded statement above would probably make it impractical to change existing arrangements.

Lyn T
 

WILLIAMR

Account Closed
Apr 12, 2014
1,078
This has been discussed on Talking Point before. As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, there is no chance of this even being suggested as a policy option in the UK. It would be electorally disastrous. 31 US States do have filial responsibility laws, as do several Canadian Provinces. The similar Scots law of aliment was formally abolished by around 1930 (I think). But it is barely workable in the US and Canada, and very limited in effect and the circumstances where those laws can be used are very limited. Any attempt to do so in the UK would probably fail on human rights grounds as well. So it's pretty pointless getting exercised about it.

W
Also what would the court do if 1 of the offspring was in the UK and the other had emigrated or was not traceable.
Would the one who could be traced have to pay the lot?.

William
 

Witzend

Registered User
Aug 29, 2007
4,291
SW London
I was talking to someone last night and he was of the view the offspring should be forced to contribute to a parents care fees and said he knew of a case where the son was a millionaire and he was making the LA pay for his parents care.
My view is the son's wealth is nothing to do with the parents care fees and that is the legal situation.
He then said the law should be changed.
If this happened I think people will not bother to get higher earning jobs if they know all their wealth could be taken for their parents care fees.
Also a million pounds is not a lot these days.
Somebody could have a house worth say £300,000. £300,000 in savings and a potential to receive a pension of £25,000 for say 20 years.
It could be argued this person was a millionaire and comfortable but he / she would not be living a champagne type life style.

William
I don't think anyone with the assets you describe would normally be reckoned a millionaire. I would think you would need cash or assets that could be turned into cash, not including your own home, e.g. shares, bonds, 2nd or further residential properties, etc.
As I recall the official definition of a High Net Worth individual (over $1m I think) does not include the primary residence.
 

WILLIAMR

Account Closed
Apr 12, 2014
1,078
William

I was in no way suggesting that people who have inherited when their parents have not been placed in a CH/NH should be disinherited-or even if they have had the parents home already 'protected' have the 'protection taken away.

I suggested-Far better for each generation to take charge of their own care-as BeckyJan says- and to stop the various ways of 'protecting' the future inheritance of the upcoming generation. Any new law which came into place regarding the bolded statement above would probably make it impractical to change existing arrangements.

Lyn T
Hi Lyn

When you say generation do you mean that all assets should be used for care.
You could have a situation where a husband and wife have £300,000 worth of assets and the mother does not go in to care but the father could be in care for say 10 years.
Are you saying the mother should not be able to will her half of the house to the offspring so only £150,000 will be available for care fees instead of £300,000.

William
 

garnuft

Registered User
Sep 7, 2012
6,585
It is never going to be an option. No adult is responsible for another adult.
Makes one rejoice at being a European.

Interested to read in Jenniferpa's link
Underlying the earlier decisions was generally a finding of “unclean hands”—that the children had engaged in fraudulent conduct or had illegally transferred mom and dad’s assets.
I like that description.
 

LYN T

Registered User
Aug 30, 2012
6,960
Brixham Devon
Hi Lyn

When you say generation do you mean that all assets should be used for care.
You could have a situation where a husband and wife have £300,000 worth of assets and the mother does not go in to care but the father could be in care for say 10 years.
Are you saying the mother should not be able to will her half of the house to the offspring so only £150,000 will be available for care fees instead of £300,000.

William
When I say generation in the context of the statement I mean-older generation (parents)/younger generation (off spring of the parents).

In the example you have given (my bolding) of course, if the Mother outlives her Husband, she can will her assets to whom ever she wishes-whether that be her sons/daughters or the RSPCA. Going by the PRESENT laws the mother could will her half of the house to whomever she wanted but if she died before her Husband the whole amount would go to her Husband's care. (if they were 'only' joint tenants) She would have to make her offspring (or the RSPCA) Tenants in Common-therefore 'protecting' her half of the property.This is what I object to. The same as I would object to the second generation from having to use their own money (even if they are millionaires) to fund the previous generations care.

As I posted previously, I think that each generation should be responsible for their own care. I would like new laws implemented so there is no confusion and perhaps that would stop the SECOND generation from giving up their own homes and thinking they would be protected (rightly or wrongly) by moving in with a parent. If a parent needs care, and a son/daughter moves in with them to do the caring, how much better would it be if they rented out their original abode so they had somewhere to return if the parent needed residential care.

Just MY viewpoint.
 
Last edited:

WILLIAMR

Account Closed
Apr 12, 2014
1,078
When I say generation in the context of the statement I mean-older generation (parents)/younger generation (off spring of the parents).

In the example you have given (my bolding) of course, if the Mother outlives her Husband, she can will her assets to whom ever she wishes-whether that be her sons/daughters or the RSPCA. Going by the PRESENT laws the mother could will her half of the house to whomever she wanted but if she died before her Husband the whole amount would go to her Husband's care. (if they were 'only' joint tenants) She would have to make her offspring (or the RSPCA) Tenants in Common-therefore 'protecting' her half of the property.This is what I object to. The same as I would object to the second generation from having to use their own money (even if they are millionaires) to fund the previous generations care.

As I posted previously, I think that each generation should be responsible for their own care. I would like new laws implemented so there is no confusion and perhaps that would stop the SECOND generation from giving up their own homes and thinking they would be protected (rightly or wrongly) by moving in with a parent. If a parent needs care, and a son/daughter moves in with them to do the caring, how much better would it be if they rented out their original abode so they had somewhere to return if the parent needed residential care.

Just MY viewpoint.
Lyn

If what you suggest came in to force the estate from the spouse to die first would have to go to the surviving spouse and he / she would then be in a position to will the deceased spouses part of the estate to whoever he / she desires which may be different to the wishes of the deceased spouse.
The other point to be considered is if it was not for the offspring returning to the parental home the parent would not have been able to afford to keep that property going and would have had to downsize.
Another point to consider is some of the offspring had been retired early and have been in a position to care for their parent in 1 case for 11 years.
If they had not had that caring responsibility they could have probably got another job.

I think if your proposals come in offspring would have to be warned not to spend any money on the parental home as the money could in effect go to the parents care fees.
I know a lady who spent £80,000 on the house after moving in with her father for example relying on the fact she had inherited her mother's half.

William
 

Caroleca

Registered User
Jan 11, 2014
331
Ontario canada
Well I must be clued out...because I live in Canada and I have never heard of such a thing. Nor do I know anyone who has been forced to financially care for parents. I will have to do some reading!!
Carole