Care Fees and Offspring.

[Lulabelle]

This happens in France.
A friend of mine who has worked damn hard all her life for a pittance was approached by the French govt to pay for her mother's care. Given that this 'mother' had put her and several of her 9 siblings in a children's home when she was 5, they got short shift from her and she doesn't have to pay.
They can even get grandchildren to pay, if they feel like it.
My hairdresser's mother has pretty severe Alzheimer's and is looked after at home by her sister and the whole family contributes to her care - it's either that or they pay considerably more for her in a home.

 

[garnuft]

This happens in France.
A friend of mine who has worked damn hard all her life for a pittance was approached by the French govt to pay for her mother's care. Given that this 'mother' had put her and several of her 9 siblings in a children's home when she was 5, they got short shift from her and she doesn't have to pay.
They can even get grandchildren to pay, if they feel like it.
My hairdresser's mother has pretty severe Alzheimer's and is looked after at home by her sister and the whole family contributes to her care - it's either that or they pay considerably more for her in a home.

I think, even under French Law, unless a contract is signed (similar to 'top-ups' in England?) there is no financial obligation or enforceable legal requirement.

Makes one glad to be English.

 

[jenniferpa]

Part of the problem (if it can be described as such) is that in my state at least, if the child doesn't live in the state, the law doesn't apply. Not that it will be an issue for us: my MIL is in no way indigent. But we could move 40 miles and be in a different state.

Having said that: the case that I linked to was slightly odd in that the mother was not a US citizen, and the family (or she) failed to complete the medicare application (which would probably have paid the bill if they had done so). So while the son didn't have unclean hands, the home legitimately expected to be paid by medicare and because the mother didn't follow through and was then out of the reach of US authorities (or at least, not easily within reach) that's why they went after the only child that lived in the state.

And PA also has a get out for children of parents who abandoned them.

 

[Lulabelle]

I think, even under French Law, unless a contract is signed (similar to 'top-ups' in England?) there is no financial obligation or enforceable legal requirement.

Makes one glad to be English.

Hi Garnuft,
I've just checked this out and it seems that, by law, children or even grandchildren are obliged to pay for their parents/grandparents in France however, it is means tested. So, if you've got no money or, as in the case of my friend your parents didn't actually support you when you were young, you don't have to pay.
But you're right - makes one glad to be English.

 

[stanleypj]

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

'It could be argued', I suppose.

But any bizarre notion could be argued by somebody.

So what?

 

[Pickles53]

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

In response to your comment (my bold) I think that once assets have been passed on to someone else it is their money and up to them to decide what to do with it. I know a couple of situations where problems have been caused by the provisions of a will where the person making the will had attempted to restrict what could be done with the assets being passed on. Circumstances change, and things happen that nobody could have predicted or foreseen. I think you have to trust the person you're leaving the money to to make the best decision they can.

I agree to the extent that if the law were changed, a son/daughter (or anyone else) moving to care for a parent would need to consider the financial implications of spending any of their own money, but there are a number of ways that equity can be released from a property if improvements/repairs/adaptations are needed.

Also think LynT is right that it would be wiser, if the carer had their own home, that it is rented out rather than sold, so he/she has a home to go back to. A tenant would not be any less secure as most people only have a tenancy that can be ended by the landlord with a couple of months notice.

As others have said, I'm pretty sure this situation is unlikely to arise as I don't expect any change in our law, but it's still an interesting theoretical discussion.

 

[stanleypj]

If we're into interesting theoretical discussion, how about this:

The distinction between health and social care is a false one.

Dementia develops because of changes in the brain and should be treated as a medical condition.

The treatment of medical conditions should be funded by all of us, and we would all make a fair contribution, according to our ability to pay, in the knowledge that treatment would be provided for us should it be needed.

The treatment provided for dementia would, at a certain point and in most cases, be what we now call care. People would be helped to live on a daily basis and kept as healthy as possible. This would be regarded in the same way that, for example, the treatment for a person in a long-term coma is provided, with no suggestion that the person or their relatives would pay.

Of course, to introduce such a project we would need to have great reforming government like the 1945 Labour Government (how are the mighty fallen) and another Nye Bevan, rather than today's pygmies.

 

[Dustycat]

Just thought I would add something to tge Tenants in Common discussion. My parents had this included in their wills and my mother died in 2014 and my Dad is now in care. In reality we will never need to use money from the proceeds of the house to pay for care as Dad has a good pension which covers his costs. However when the house is sold half the proceeds pass to me BUT I have to hold the money in trust until my father's death so in effect it is ' dead' money and doesn't benefit anyone. Just thought it was worth adding how it is working out for me. X

 

[LYN T]

If we're into interesting theoretical discussion, how about this:

The distinction between health and social care is a false one.

Dementia develops because of changes in the brain and should be treated as a medical condition.

The treatment of medical conditions should be funded by all of us, and we would all make a fair contribution, according to our ability to pay, in the knowledge that treatment would be provided for us should it be needed.

The treatment provided for dementia would, at a certain point and in most cases, be what we now call care. People would be helped to live on a daily basis and kept as healthy as possible. This would be regarded in the same way that, for example, the treatment for a person in a long-term coma is provided, with no suggestion that the person or their relatives would pay.

Of course, to introduce such a project we would need to have great reforming government like the 1945 Labour Government (how are the mighty fallen) and another Nye Bevan, rather than today's pygmies.

Stanley-I so agree with the points you have made.

Dementia should be viewed as a medical condition-and yes we do need a reforming Government. Unfortunately, I can't see anyone on the political scene with the ability of Bevan. I won't go any further with my political views.

However, taking into account what you wrote about people paying based on their ability to do so-how wonderful if that could be so. As soon as a political party mentions raising taxes the press has a field day. As do some sections of the public. As you say no one can see into the future, so no one can remotely know when/if they will need care. I suspect that some people moan about increased taxes and then again moan when there are no (free) funds available to pay for care for their loved ones.

If the NHS was in a better state and had more funds being put into the pot, then Dementia care at a certain point could be free at the point of need.

Take care

Lyn T

 

[WILLIAMR]

Just thought I would add something to tge Tenants in Common discussion. My parents had this included in their wills and my mother died in 2014 and my Dad is now in care. In reality we will never need to use money from the proceeds of the house to pay for care as Dad has a good pension which covers his costs. However when the house is sold half the proceeds pass to me BUT I have to hold the money in trust until my father's death so in effect it is ' dead' money and doesn't benefit anyone. Just thought it was worth adding how it is working out for me. X

Hi Dustycat

Oddly I know somebody in your position and a daughter had a house of her own and owned a bungalow on a tenants in common basis with her mother.
When her mother went in to care the LA could not take the bungalow into account for care fees purposes.
The daughter had planned on moving in to her parental bungalow when she finally inherited it fully so she sold her house and moved in to the bungalow as soon as her mother went in to care knowing she would inherit her mother's share.
The LA was not pleased but it could not do anything about it.

William

 

[Pickles53]

However, taking into account what you wrote about people paying based on their ability to do so-how wonderful if that could be so. As soon as a political party mentions raising taxes the press has a field day. As do some sections of the public. As you say no one can see into the future, so no one can remotely know when/if they will need care. I suspect that some people moan about increased taxes and then again moan when there are no (free) funds available to pay for care for their loved ones.

Lyn T

Well said LynT, especially agree with the sentence in bold. In an ideal world, a person with dementia or indeed any other long term health problem or disability would only pay for those costs that everyone has to fund (food/accommodation/utilities etc). But that could only happen if we're all prepared to fund it.

I'd also really like to see carer's allowance raised to at least the equivalent of 40 hours at minimum wage (to start with). I have read many posts where someone would like to look after a relative themselves but simply can't afford to.

 

[LYN T]

I'd also really like to see carer's allowance raised to at least the equivalent of 40 hours at minimum wage (to start with). I have read many posts where someone would like to look after a relative themselves but simply can't afford to.

Seconded Even job seekers allowance is more than a Carers allowance-yet home Carers are already doing a job-and I imagine Carers work more hours than job seekers do looking for a position.

 

[Wirralson]

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

I like that description.

It is from the law of equity and trusts and is widely adopted elsewhere "(S)he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands" - i.e. when an applicant is seeking redress there must be no failures to act or misconduct by the applicant. Although the cases concerned were not cases in equity, the principle is more widely applied.

W

 

[Wirralson]

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

I have answered this before to you in another thread. Basically, each US State only has jurisdiction within its own boundaries. Some States have reciprocity agreements ("treaties" if you like) which allow for enforcement of some civil remedies in other State(s) which are party to the agreement, but these are usually very specific. But for specific answers, it will depend on the State involved and the terms of the law in question whether any offspring within the State are liable for the whole amount or only a proportion. You would need to check with a lawyer specialising in the field in the jurisdiction concerned. As it doesn't apply in the UK and won't this side of Satan having a personal ice rink, I can't see any point in worrying about it.

W

 

[Wirralson]

Seconded Even job seekers allowance is more than a Carers allowance-yet home Carers are already doing a job-and I imagine Carers work more hours than job seekers do looking for a position.

Carers allowance (when I tried to claim it at least) required evidence that the carer was attending the person being cared for for at least 37 hours per week - the form required me to fill in times like an Agency time-sheet.

W

 

[jeany123]

Carers allowance (when I tried to claim it at least) required evidence that the carer was attending the person being cared for for at least 37 hours per day - the form required me to fill in times like an Agency time-sheet.

W

I hope you mean week it feels like a day, it was 35 hours a week for me,

I only got entitlement as I had started getting pension,

 

[Oxy]

100%agreee with Pickles and Lyn T. Jobseekers also have freedom to use their time as they wish. Carers just can't. Not even look after their own health by exercising. As I may have mentioned before the gov of day is short sighted as those of us who have lost all through caring will probably need benefits lifelong-no saving for them and disability through lack of exercise and social contact also will provide extra expense and healthcare resources.

 

[Wirralson]

If we're into interesting theoretical discussion, how about this:

The distinction between health and social care is a false one.

Dementia develops because of changes in the brain and should be treated as a medical condition.

The treatment of medical conditions should be funded by all of us, and we would all make a fair contribution, according to our ability to pay, in the knowledge that treatment would be provided for us should it be needed.

The treatment provided for dementia would, at a certain point and in most cases, be what we now call care. People would be helped to live on a daily basis and kept as healthy as possible. This would be regarded in the same way that, for example, the treatment for a person in a long-term coma is provided, with no suggestion that the person or their relatives would pay.

Of course, to introduce such a project we would need to have great reforming government like the 1945 Labour Government (how are the mighty fallen) and another Nye Bevan, rather than today's pygmies.

I am afraid I can't totally agree Stanley. All illnesses have two elements to the care package - a clinical element and a non-clinical one, and dementia is by no means the only such illness involved. The boundary (and it was set in the UK very deliberately by the 1945-50 Labour Government) was designed to deal with a specific problem. This was that if you treat all aspects of "care" (including what we currently call "social care" - that which is below the threshold set by section 21(8) of the National Assistance Act 1948 - and that which is above that threshold) as being fully publicly funded without means-testing, you create a situation which incentives people externalising their own (or their relatives') costs for what, in many cases, is going to be simple frailty. The result would have been a massive and uncontrolled and near-uncontrollable rise in expenditure that would simply not be capable of being funded by any credible or sustainable rates of taxation (income tax isn't the main issue here - it accounts for a minority of UK tax revenues). (Btw, post-war, taxation levels were massive and very unpopular indeed although such rates were probably unavoidable - in the darkest Crippsian austerity days the "Daily Mirror" (!) ran a headline "Income tax 19/6 in the £ - Limit Nearly Reached?")

There are other ways of dealing with the likely expenditure problem and arranging different patterns of "redistribution" - the most likely over the next 20 - 25 years is a move to a "separate stamp for Health" which would be hypothecated (i.e. reserved) and not a tax (like NI today) which would (together with some additional and considerable call on public funds) start to cover elements at least of the long term cost of what is currently divided as health and social care. This could be what economists call progressive - based on ability to pay - and would need to be unrelated to health condition. Essentially it would be a form of tax-***-insurance as in Germany, for example. It is an unpleasant reality that the likely pattern of UK demographics, revenues and social care/healthcare needs will mean that the overall burden of taxes is unlikely to reduce, other payment streams will be needed, and the quality and nature of provision is unlikely to become better significantly, although the scale of demand will probably increase. I have a strong preference for the German model rather than the UK one as a funding measure simply because it allows healthcare (and social care) providers to plan for a reliable income stream which reduces the fire-fighting / struggle element of funding. It also, to adapt a current political phrase, de-weaponises the NHS, which is something that is desperately needed if funding and provision are to acquire some kind of stability.

One final point which tends not to be expressed on TP, but it is worth remembering. From the perspective of the politicians, and the post they get, the problem isn't one of a split between health and social care dealing harshly with the person being cared for. In a sense, however mind-numbing the bureaucracy and however awful the illnesses (not just dementia) there isn't a problem. The current system, as with unemployment, does force the person's own income and capital assets to be used to fund their care in most cases. But for those without significant capital or with low incomes, the public purse ends up bearing the cost (either the LA or the NHS for CHC and s117 funding). So from the politicians' perspective the difficulty is that any change ends up using public funds to protect the assets of the person being cared for which is only to the eventual advantage of their estate. The very wealthy can use trusts or other methods to minimise their liabilities. It's the ones in the middle who get squeezed. For me at least, it's hard to see how it is "unfair" for those with assets or income to be expected to use these for at least some non-clinical aspects of their own care, nor do I see how care for those without such assets could be anything other than publicly funded in some way. To answer Lyn T's point I don't expect public money to be used for my father's care until his assets are exhausted - they are his assets and to be used for his benefit. Anything in his will is a bonus for its beneficiaries. (As I'm not one, it doesn't affect me either way in any case.)

W

 

[Wirralson]

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

Try these links:

http://www.canadianelderlaw.ca/Family Responsibility.htm

Examples below from BC, Quebec etc. AIUI only Alberta doesn't have such a law:

http://www.canadianelderlaw.ca/Family Responsibility Laws.htm

However, they are rarely enforced. In practice, Canadian law on elder care means that only if a parent falls outside the scope of Canadian care funding and has no assets through no fault of their own and their child(ren) is/are within the relevant jurisdiction. That's quite rare, although not unknown:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/01/17/filial-responsibility/

I have family in BC, with some involved in politics there, and it was and is a live issue.

W

 

[Dustycat]

Thanks William. That option isn't a consideration for me unfortunately as the property is a retirement flat and has a lower age limit and I am too young unfortunately. X