Relatives who just don't get it

[Linea_Norway]

This is kind of a rant for me about my ridiculous family. My grandparents both have some degree of mental health issues that have recently spiraled out of control. I just found out that over the last 6 months my grandmother has racked up over $12k in credit card debt. I was speechless. Like I can't even process how this could happen when the only expenses they have is a car payment and property taxes. The amount of new crap stuffed into that house must be insane. I dread going there to clean it out. On top of that, the house is in so much disrepair it needs to be condemned. Just waiting for the ish to hit the fan. Should be happening any day now...

This sounds like your grandmother suddenly might have gotten some addiction, like playing online casino or something completely different. Maybe you should go over there and ask her out and try to stop it.

She has had a habit for the last 30 years of shopping. She tells me it's entitlement. She worked hard so she is now entitled to whatever she wants. Also, one of her kids was expecting a six figure sum of money and the amount was settled about three months ago...grandma hit up her kid right away saying part of that money was hers too (it really isn't in any sane way).

ETA: we also don't have that kind of relationship where I could help her. I mean I try to but it always turns out with her threatening to call the police and me telling her to go ahead because then her house will get condemned. Then she says I will give her another stroke (no one actually believes she ever had the first stroke) and I say....well...lets just say it's bad.

OK, some people don't want to be helped. Best to not interfere then, as long as you are not in danger to inherit any debt she will make.

[Fishingmn]

I do encourage everyone to help your elderly parents/grandparents who aren't as savvy with finances. We recently decided we needed to get more engaged with my 77 year old in-laws. They are smart people but old age has them slowing down in recent years with some health issues.

Yesterday I accompanied them to Verizon. They had been paying $140/mo for an out of contract phone plan. I got that reduced to $70/mo + added a 15% military veteran discount they had never known about.

We also found out that MIL is paying $800/year for a $10k term life policy and has been for years. Almost all of their investments are in cash or bonds.

They are getting by fine on SS and pension covering their expenses but if one of them needs nursing care they will probably be wiped out within 2-3 years.

It's hard to start these conversations sometimes, especially with privacy concerns and their embarrassment to try and cover up for their mistakes, but once we got past those I think they are happy for the help and the savings.

[Threshkin]

I do encourage everyone to help your elderly parents/grandparents who aren't as savvy with finances. We recently decided we needed to get more engaged with my 77 year old in-laws. They are smart people but old age has them slowing down in recent years with some health issues.

...snip...

They are getting by fine on SS and pension covering their expenses but if one of them needs nursing care they will probably be wiped out within 2-3 years.

It's hard to start these conversations sometimes, especially with privacy concerns and their embarrassment to try and cover up for their mistakes, but once we got past those I think they are happy for the help and the savings.

This happened to my mom.  We was doing okay on her SS and limited assets until she had to go into a nursing home suddenly and unexpectedly.  At ~$8500/mo for the last two years her finances have been decimated.  We are now waiting for her Medicaid application to be approved.

[mtn]

I do encourage everyone to help your elderly parents/grandparents who aren't as savvy with finances. We recently decided we needed to get more engaged with my 77 year old in-laws. They are smart people but old age has them slowing down in recent years with some health issues.

...snip...

They are getting by fine on SS and pension covering their expenses but if one of them needs nursing care they will probably be wiped out within 2-3 years.

It's hard to start these conversations sometimes, especially with privacy concerns and their embarrassment to try and cover up for their mistakes, but once we got past those I think they are happy for the help and the savings.

This happened to my mom.  We was doing okay on her SS and limited assets until she had to go into a nursing home suddenly and unexpectedly.  At ~$8500/mo for the last two years her finances have been decimated.  We are now waiting for her Medicaid application to be approved.

My MIL has MS. I keep thinking that my FIL and MIL should get divorced, on paper. It could be a no-contest divorce, arrange it so that he gets everything (she makes more than he does and actually has a pension, which he won't). The house and cars are already in his name. They have good insurance and good care, but she's going to ruin them when she finally does need full time attention.

Either that, or start putting everything into a trust and transfer it to my wife's and BIL's (currently non-existent) trusts. But I don't want to deal with a house.

[Maverick44]

My MIL has MS. I keep thinking that my FIL and MIL should get divorced, on paper. It could be a no-contest divorce, arrange it so that he gets everything (she makes more than he does and actually has a pension, which he won't). The house and cars are already in his name. They have good insurance and good care, but she's going to ruin them when she finally does need full time attention.

Either that, or start putting everything into a trust and transfer it to my wife's and BIL's (currently non-existent) trusts. But I don't want to deal with a house.

I've been trying this with my parents for a few years now.  My father has Alzheimer's and my mom won't divorce him on paper even though it would be best for both of them financially.  I know that it's hard emotionally for her, but in the end shouldn't he get the care he needs without wiping her out?

[AlanStache]

My MIL has MS. I keep thinking that my FIL and MIL should get divorced, on paper. It could be a no-contest divorce, arrange it so that he gets everything (she makes more than he does and actually has a pension, which he won't). The house and cars are already in his name. They have good insurance and good care, but she's going to ruin them when she finally does need full time attention.

Either that, or start putting everything into a trust and transfer it to my wife's and BIL's (currently non-existent) trusts. But I don't want to deal with a house.

I've been trying this with my parents for a few years now.  My father has Alzheimer's and my mom won't divorce him on paper even though it would be best for both of them financially.  I know that it's hard emotionally for her, but in the end shouldn't he get the care he needs without wiping her out?

When I was very young my grandma got sick.  Her daughters discussed with there father (my grandfather) that her illness could cost him everything but he refused to divorce his wife.  In someways it is good that she died relatively quickly.  How stupid is it that 30+ years latter the same problems are still going on!

[Xlar]

My FIL almost bought one of these as an investment on a whim: https://store.melfisher.com/collections/authentic-atocha-coins-1

They randomly went to the museum and all he knew about them was what the sales person told him. They claimed the coins went up in value at least 6-7% each year. The only reason that they didn't buy them was because they didn't have enough left in their bank account after paying for the trip down there...

[Lyngi]

My MIL has MS. I keep thinking that my FIL and MIL should get divorced, on paper. It could be a no-contest divorce, arrange it so that he gets everything (she makes more than he does and actually has a pension, which he won't). The house and cars are already in his name. They have good insurance and good care, but she's going to ruin them when she finally does need full time attention.

Either that, or start putting everything into a trust and transfer it to my wife's and BIL's (currently non-existent) trusts. But I don't want to deal with a house.

All the parents need to go see an elder law specialist attorney!!  My mom has Alzheimer's and my dad was wondering about protecting assets and a ton of other things.  In our state, my parents would have to basically split the assets fairly equally in a "divorce."  My dad would have to transfer a bunch of his  retirement accounts to my mom to make things "fair."  The other alternative would be to transfer their house and any non-retirement accounts into an irrevocable trust.  My dad would "lose control" over those accounts to the trustee (me, probably).   And then the trust would still be subject to the Medicaid 5 year lookback. 
     My mom's doctor said that maybe a "divorce" is the best thing.  If my mom goes into long term care, Medicaid will take everything.  They allow only a very small amount for the stay at home spouse to live on.   My dad deserves to be taken care of, if something were to happen, and he needed care too.    It is such a freaking mess that,  6 months later,  not one thing has been decided on.   

[Feivel2000]

I am really surprised to hear so many Americans have the opinion that in case of a serious illness, people should separate to save the assets, so one partner can enjoy life and hopefully have lots to pass on.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility or "In good and in bad times".

I am not suggesting that I wouldn't probably think about cashing out all the profits from a marriage and let the community pay for medical aid for the love of my life, but still, I am pretty surprised how common this thinking is...

[Vindicated]

I am really surprised to hear so many Americans have the opinion that in case of a serious illness, people should separate to save the assets, so one partner can enjoy life and hopefully have lots to pass on.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility or "In good and in bad times".

I am not suggesting that I wouldn't probably think about cashing out all the profits from a marriage and let the community pay for medical aid for the love of my life, but still, I am pretty surprised how common this thinking is...

I don't think any of them are considering a real separation from their loved one's.  Just a legal one.  That way the person with Alz can get medicare, and the other isn't bankrupted by it. 

[Feivel2000]

I am really surprised to hear so many Americans have the opinion that in case of a serious illness, people should separate to save the assets, so one partner can enjoy life and hopefully have lots to pass on.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility or "In good and in bad times".

I am not suggesting that I wouldn't probably think about cashing out all the profits from a marriage and let the community pay for medical aid for the love of my life, but still, I am pretty surprised how common this thinking is...

I don't think any of them are considering a real separation from their loved one's.  Just a legal one.  That way the person with Alz can get medicare, and the other isn't bankrupted by it.

Of course, I do understand. Still, the tax breaks in a marriage partially exist because of these liabilities for care between spouses.
Taking all the profits while society has take all the risks and losses will break the system pretty quickly.

I get it, game theory is to blame.

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

[marielle]

I am really surprised to hear so many Americans have the opinion that in case of a serious illness, people should separate to save the assets, so one partner can enjoy life and hopefully have lots to pass on.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility or "In good and in bad times".

I am not suggesting that I wouldn't probably think about cashing out all the profits from a marriage and let the community pay for medical aid for the love of my life, but still, I am pretty surprised how common this thinking is...

I don't think any of them are considering a real separation from their loved one's.  Just a legal one.  That way the person with Alz can get medicare, and the other isn't bankrupted by it.

Of course, I do understand. Still, the tax breaks in a marriage partially exist because of these liabilities for care between spouses.
Taking all the profits while society has take all the risks and losses will break the system pretty quickly.

I get it, game theory is to blame.

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Not everyone saves on taxes from marriage. In fact, you could actually pay more taxes depending on income. If you have middle class income and each make equal pay, there is no savings or penalty on taxes.

[Fishindude]

Not a relative but a close friend story.   
Spent last weekend with a good buddy relaxing at my cabin, he's 58 years old been married a long time, and he shared the following unsolicited information.
* Before leaving went to get some money from ATM, but wasn't anything in the account so wife got him some cash somehow.
* They were upside down on last automobile, replaced it and now leasing a new car.
* One kid has over $200K in college loans and still not finished.
* They've lived in same house for 30+ years but still have a mortgage payment, due to re-fi's.

From outward appearance, this couple looks to be very successful; nice house, nice autos, clean cut, good kids, etc. but I'm guessing most everything they earn is going out the door in payments.
I'm hoping they have been participating heavily in 401K's because they aren't too far from retirement age.  Don't think either's job would have a pension.   

This is probably a snapshot of many American families.

[charis]

Not a relative but a close friend story.   
Spent last weekend with a good buddy relaxing at my cabin, he's 58 years old been married a long time, and he shared the following unsolicited information.
* Before leaving went to get some money from ATM, but wasn't anything in the account so wife got him some cash somehow.
* They were upside down on last automobile, replaced it and now leasing a new car.
* One kid has over $200K in college loans and still not finished.
* They've lived in same house for 30+ years but still have a mortgage payment, due to re-fi's.

From outward appearance, this couple looks to be very successful; nice house, nice autos, clean cut, good kids, etc. but I'm guessing most everything they earn is going out the door in payments.
I'm hoping they have been participating heavily in 401K's because they aren't too far from retirement age.  Don't think either's job would have a pension.   

This is probably a snapshot of many American families.

I have friends who could very well be this couple in 20+ years.  Bought a nice, expensive house in an expensive neighborhood (at the "high end" of their budget) a few years ago - mortgaged 90% even with selling their prior home (against which they took out home equity loans every couple of years). 

Based on comments over the past few years, it is clear that they have been basically living paycheck to paycheck.  One spouse recently took a pay cut and now there's talk of moving, ostensibly to a less expensive property (but not according to the listings they've showed me), just so they can afford current bills, including private school tuition. 

Not much cash or college savings to my knowledge.  The strain is also hurting their marriage but they cannot afford counseling at the moment.

[druth]

Not everyone saves on taxes from marriage. In fact, you could actually pay more taxes depending on income. If you have middle class income and each make equal pay, there is no savings or penalty on taxes.

And even when you are in the blue bands in that graph, where you are making significantly different incomes, you are probably missing out on a ton of government benefits by being married.

It might save us 3k in taxes to be married but the loss of my state health insurance would be a 5k+ burden.

[infogoon]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

[Feivel2000]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

Well, yes and no.
First of all, in Germany, we have a compulsory long-term care insurance. So every one is forced to prepare for long-term care in addition to the compulsory health insurance.
This insurance should, in theory, make sure, that an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

But, a nursing home space for someone with Pflegestufe (level of care needed) 3 will cost roughly 3165€ per month while the long-term care insurance maxes out at 2005€ per month. The difference has to be paid (ultimately) by the care receiver or his relatives.

First the spouse has to pay.
If at the time of the divorce the need for care is known, the obligation to support persists. Even if the illness is not known, there is something called "Unterhalt in Not" (support in need/misery) what could lead to an obligation to support the ex, even years after the divorce. (Unterhalt in Not can be excluded during the divorce process, but you need to know about it to exclude it...)

If the spouse can't pay (or when the care has consumed all available resources), the children have to pay for the care for their parents. This obligation persists, even if you hate your parents and haven't spoken to them for 30 years.

Of course, there are limits. E.g, as son or daughter you don't have to pay if your monthly disposable income is below 1800€ (3420 if married).
But this protected income can go down to 770€ per month, if the care receiver is your spouse.

So an elderly person in need for care could bankrupt their spouse.

TLDR;
In Germany we are forced to prepare for long-term care. The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year. If it's your spouse, it can bankrupt you.

[WranglerBowman]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

[rockstache]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

[Feivel2000]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

But let me clarify: Only vertical relatives (grandparents <-> parents <-> children), not horizontal (brother/sister).

[AlanStache]

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Is complicated.  Should I contribute to the care of your parents when you could care for them?  This quickly gets into much larger questions.

[merula]

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Is complicated.  Should I contribute to the care of your parents when you could care for them?  This quickly gets into much larger questions.

This exists in the US, too, though. The Koch brothers and Warren Buffet are entitled to their Social Security and Medicare Part A benefits just like anyone else, subject to the requirements of those programs. Taxpayers also pay for lots of things for people who could afford them themselves: pensions for Congress aren't means tested, nor is continued Secret Service protection for former presidents and their families, despite the fact that all living former (and, heck, current) presidents could easily afford the cost of private security. (Except maybe Carter? He sold the peanut farm and I don't think he gets paid for Habitat For Humanity, so who knows?)

[rockstache]

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Is complicated.  Should I contribute to the care of your parents when you could care for them?  This quickly gets into much larger questions.

This exists in the US, too, though. The Koch brothers and Warren Buffet are entitled to their Social Security and Medicare Part A benefits just like anyone else, subject to the requirements of those programs. Taxpayers also pay for lots of things for people who could afford them themselves: pensions for Congress aren't means tested, nor is continued Secret Service protection for former presidents and their families, despite the fact that all living former (and, heck, current) presidents could easily afford the cost of private security. (Except maybe Carter? He sold the peanut farm and I don't think he gets paid for Habitat For Humanity, so who knows?)

Contributing to making sure that people don't end up destitute through taxes is a very different thing than becoming forced to use your carefully preserved resources care for your own relative who may even be your former abuser/neglect-er.

[wenchsenior]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Actually, there are a number of states with similar laws on the books, though usually not enforced, that allow the state or private nursing facilities to pursue forced payment from other relatives.  I read an article recently that speculated that as the U.S. population ages and the financial burden increases, more state might start trying to enforce these laws. 

Scary shit, indeed.

[MgoSam]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Actually, there are a number of states with similar laws on the books, though usually not enforced, that allow the state or private nursing facilities to pursue forced payment from other relatives.  I read an article recently that speculated that as the U.S. population ages and the financial burden increases, more state might start trying to enforce these laws. 

Scary shit, indeed.

I read a case where a guy provided a sperm sample to a lesbian couple with the agreement that he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Well the couple later filed for welfare and the state went after him for back child support. The trial judge agreed with the state and threw out the agreement he had with the couple. Thankfully on appeal that was overturned.

[Feivel2000]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Actually, there are a number of states with similar laws on the books, though usually not enforced, that allow the state or private nursing facilities to pursue forced payment from other relatives.  I read an article recently that speculated that as the U.S. population ages and the financial burden increases, more state might start trying to enforce these laws. 

Scary shit, indeed.

I read a case where a guy provided a sperm sample to a lesbian couple with the agreement that he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Well the couple later filed for welfare and the state went after him for back child support. The trial judge agreed with the state and threw out the agreement he had with the couple. Thankfully on appeal that was overturned.

Abuse is one reason why you would not have to pay.

Child support is not for the mother, it is for the child. So I can understand why the biological father could stay liable. Even though it's counter intuitive. It is probably the result of old laws from times when nobody had considered this constellation as a real possibility.

[Dicey]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

[jinga nation]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Actually, there are a number of states with similar laws on the books, though usually not enforced, that allow the state or private nursing facilities to pursue forced payment from other relatives.  I read an article recently that speculated that as the U.S. population ages and the financial burden increases, more state might start trying to enforce these laws. 

Scary shit, indeed.

I read a case where a guy provided a sperm sample to a lesbian couple with the agreement that he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Well the couple later filed for welfare and the state went after him for back child support. The trial judge agreed with the state and threw out the agreement he had with the couple. Thankfully on appeal that was overturned.

Abuse is one reason why you would not have to pay.

Child support is not for the mother, it is for the child. So I can understand why the biological father could stay liable. Even though it's counter intuitive. It is probably the result of old laws from times when nobody had considered this constellation as a real possibility.

Men need to stop giving their sperm away willy-nilly. Treat it like Intellectual Property.
(Pun intended in line above.)

[MgoSam]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Actually, there are a number of states with similar laws on the books, though usually not enforced, that allow the state or private nursing facilities to pursue forced payment from other relatives.  I read an article recently that speculated that as the U.S. population ages and the financial burden increases, more state might start trying to enforce these laws. 

Scary shit, indeed.

I read a case where a guy provided a sperm sample to a lesbian couple with the agreement that he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Well the couple later filed for welfare and the state went after him for back child support. The trial judge agreed with the state and threw out the agreement he had with the couple. Thankfully on appeal that was overturned.

Abuse is one reason why you would not have to pay.

Child support is not for the mother, it is for the child. So I can understand why the biological father could stay liable. Even though it's counter intuitive. It is probably the result of old laws from times when nobody had considered this constellation as a real possibility.

Men need to stop giving their sperm away willy-nilly. Treat it like Intellectual Property.
(Pun intended in line above.)

Do you think that male athletes should think of themselves as being like racehorses, and should charge a stud fee? I'm guessing it is a better plan than whatever athletes like Adrian Peterson and Antonio Cromartie have come up with.

[Raenia]

I read a case where a guy provided a sperm sample to a lesbian couple with the agreement that he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Well the couple later filed for welfare and the state went after him for back child support. The trial judge agreed with the state and threw out the agreement he had with the couple. Thankfully on appeal that was overturned.

Abuse is one reason why you would not have to pay.

Child support is not for the mother, it is for the child. So I can understand why the biological father could stay liable. Even though it's counter intuitive. It is probably the result of old laws from times when nobody had considered this constellation as a real possibility.

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

[Cadman]

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

That dryer is as good as scrap metal. Mom and pop stores will sometimes repair and resell, but it's too big a liability for the major chains. It's a damn shame.

[FireHiker]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

My in-laws recently bought a new dryer because they were having problems with their old one...turned out they just needed to clean the dryer vent (i believe this was discovered when they also had problems with the new one...) Generally they are pretty smart with their money, but ugh, it was hard to bite my tongue on this one!

[former player]

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

Paying for elder care has been a debate in the UK election.  I do think that, outside the entitlements from taxes that everyone gets, people who can afford their own care should pay for it, but with a sufficient safeguard as to minimum capital/income disregards for family members not to be left destitute.  I don't have a problem with the state paying for care but putting a lien on the spouse's house which becomes payable when the house is sold or the spouse moves.  I don't see that there is any entitlement to have the state pay for care in order to preserve an inheritance.

[MgoSam]

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy. 

[ormaybemidgets]

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

The original decision might have had something to do with the fact that they found the sperm donor on Craigslist, and no doctor was involved. I don't see a reason to think this would happen in the usual course of sperm donation.

[Raenia]

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

So the couple in the case never adopted their child as a legal member of their family?  I suppose maybe they didn't think the paperwork was necessary since they had their own agreement, but that still wouldn't give the non-biological mother any parental rights.

[Reynold]

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

The original decision might have had something to do with the fact that they found the sperm donor on Craigslist, and no doctor was involved. I don't see a reason to think this would happen in the usual course of sperm donation.

If the judge can "disregard all written agreements" for the welfare of the child, I don't see why they couldn't still go after the sperm donor, or for that matter the birth parents of the adopted child.   Why would a written agreement involving a doctor be any different than one not involving a doctor?

[Cookie78]

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

The original decision might have had something to do with the fact that they found the sperm donor on Craigslist, and no doctor was involved. I don't see a reason to think this would happen in the usual course of sperm donation.

If the judge can "disregard all written agreements" for the welfare of the child, I don't see why they couldn't still go after the sperm donor, or for that matter the birth parents of the adopted child.   Why would a written agreement involving a doctor be any different than one not involving a doctor?

Bigger legal team?

[MgoSam]

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

The original decision might have had something to do with the fact that they found the sperm donor on Craigslist, and no doctor was involved. I don't see a reason to think this would happen in the usual course of sperm donation.

I looked the case up and you are correct. It was because they didn't use a licensed physician.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article337100/Judge-rules-that-Kansan-who-provided-sperm-to-lesbian-couple-owes-child-support.html

That said I still think the judge's reasoning was wrong and am glad that it was overturned on appeal.

[mm1970]

I am really surprised to hear so many Americans have the opinion that in case of a serious illness, people should separate to save the assets, so one partner can enjoy life and hopefully have lots to pass on.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility or "In good and in bad times".

I am not suggesting that I wouldn't probably think about cashing out all the profits from a marriage and let the community pay for medical aid for the love of my life, but still, I am pretty surprised how common this thinking is...

This is kind of a tough one.  I've seen it in person sometimes too.  Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

But in some cases, like ones mentioned on here - what of the surviving spouse?  The surviving spouse could live 10,20,30 years?  I don't know how it works, but could Medicaid take almost everything, leaving the surviving spouse in poverty?

I mean, I also understand the desire to leave money to your heirs.  I really do.  But dang it, what's the point of having the money if you aren't using it to make yourself comfortable in your old age?  Is it okay to burden ALL taxpayers to leave your kids money?  My parents are dead.  My stepfather is still living, and his estate is reasonably large but under a million.  Sure it would be awesome to inherit.  But if he's got another 10 years to live I'd *MUCH* rather he use his money to hire a cleaning person, someone to mow the lawn, and a nurse (he's in poor health).  And eventually, if he has to go into a home (that's not really done in my home town), I'd hope he'd use his money to at least live in a nice one.  10 years in a home would probably use up the majority of his estate.  But so what!  He earned that money, I didn't.

[AlanStache]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

I got my washer/dryer from a guy that was a contractor for BestBuy to deliver appliances.  Seems lots of people are happy for him to 'dispose of' there nearly perfect 'old' appliances when they get new ones.  He then puts 10$ of parts into them and 20 minutes of time before selling them on CL.  300$ delivered & set up!

[BFGirl]

I am really surprised to hear so many Americans have the opinion that in case of a serious illness, people should separate to save the assets, so one partner can enjoy life and hopefully have lots to pass on.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility or "In good and in bad times".

I am not suggesting that I wouldn't probably think about cashing out all the profits from a marriage and let the community pay for medical aid for the love of my life, but still, I am pretty surprised how common this thinking is...

This is kind of a tough one.  I've seen it in person sometimes too.  Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

But in some cases, like ones mentioned on here - what of the surviving spouse?  The surviving spouse could live 10,20,30 years?  I don't know how it works, but could Medicaid take almost everything, leaving the surviving spouse in poverty?

I mean, I also understand the desire to leave money to your heirs.  I really do.  But dang it, what's the point of having the money if you aren't using it to make yourself comfortable in your old age?  Is it okay to burden ALL taxpayers to leave your kids money?  My parents are dead.  My stepfather is still living, and his estate is reasonably large but under a million.  Sure it would be awesome to inherit.  But if he's got another 10 years to live I'd *MUCH* rather he use his money to hire a cleaning person, someone to mow the lawn, and a nurse (he's in poor health).  And eventually, if he has to go into a home (that's not really done in my home town), I'd hope he'd use his money to at least live in a nice one.  10 years in a home would probably use up the majority of his estate.  But so what!  He earned that money, I didn't.

Medicaid for long term care has an income test and a resources test.  The spouse still living in the community can keep all income in their name.  If the community spouse has little income, they can keep up to $3022 of the sick spouse's income.  I think the spouse living in the community gets to keep half of the joint resources (doesn't' matter if it is community or separate property) up to $120,900.  Everything else has to be spent down before Medicaid will pay for long term care for a sick spouse.  At least, this is how it works in my state.  Medicaid can go after the house later to recover the benefits paid.

So, yes...a spouse in the community could end up with very little left to live on for the rest of their lives if they didn't have much in the way of income.

[iris lily]

I am really surprised to hear so many Americans have the opinion that in case of a serious illness, people should separate to save the assets, so one partner can enjoy life and hopefully have lots to pass on.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility or "In good and in bad times".

I am not suggesting that I wouldn't probably think about cashing out all the profits from a marriage and let the community pay for medical aid for the love of my life, but still, I am pretty surprised how common this thinking is...

This is kind of a tough one.  I've seen it in person sometimes too.  Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

But in some cases, like ones mentioned on here - what of the surviving spouse?  The surviving spouse could live 10,20,30 years?  I don't know how it works, but could Medicaid take almost everything, leaving the surviving spouse in poverty?...

Yes, sort of. Depends how you define "almost everything" and "poverty."

When I last looked into for me and DH, my state would allow him to keep $80,000 plus this house plus his separate income stream. It might let him keep IRAs in his name, not sure.

Of our total assets, that isnt much. But for him it would be enough.

I once semi-planned on the divorce option, splitting all of our assets down the middle, but I have si ce figured out that my income plus $500,000 would keep me in a nursing home for ten years. I doubt I would last beyond that.

[cheapass]

My bother in law is definitely a "relative who doesn't get it". We were talking about health insurance through our employers and he mentioned he usually pays a lot every year out of pocket before he hits his family deductible. Of course I suggested utilizing the HSA account.

His reply - "yeah but you gotta have money to live too"

What!!?! You're foregoing a 25% discount on your known annual costs just so you don't have to inconvenience yourself with planning ahead?

This is the same dude who, on Christmas morning, mentioned to me how he was going to be in debt for a long time after buying his kids a mountain of presents. Literally a mountain.

[Chris22]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

I got my washer/dryer from a guy that was a contractor for BestBuy to deliver appliances.  Seems lots of people are happy for him to 'dispose of' there nearly perfect 'old' appliances when they get new ones.  He then puts 10$ of parts into them and 20 minutes of time before selling them on CL.  300$ delivered & set up!

I felt bad doing this recently.  My 10y/o washing machine broke (would often fail to spin or agitate so clothes weren't getting clean or dry).  I hopped on the internet to see if there was a clear-cut fix, and some googling said "no not really".  So I got some tools and went down to take it apart, but something stopped me.  We were days away from having a newborn baby (and the resulting laundry needs) and I figured at 10 years old, even if I fixed this, how long is it going to last?  It could be another 10 years, or it could be six months, or it could be that I threw $100 in parts at it and couldn't fix it.  So I said fuck it and spent $350 on a new one.  Had we not been about to have a newborn it would've been a different decision, but I just didn't need that stress right then.  Oh well. 

[Playing with Fire UK]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

I got my washer/dryer from a guy that was a contractor for BestBuy to deliver appliances.  Seems lots of people are happy for him to 'dispose of' there nearly perfect 'old' appliances when they get new ones.  He then puts 10$ of parts into them and 20 minutes of time before selling them on CL.  300$ delivered & set up!

I felt bad doing this recently.  My 10y/o washing machine broke (would often fail to spin or agitate so clothes weren't getting clean or dry).  I hopped on the internet to see if there was a clear-cut fix, and some googling said "no not really".  So I got some tools and went down to take it apart, but something stopped me.  We were days away from having a newborn baby (and the resulting laundry needs) and I figured at 10 years old, even if I fixed this, how long is it going to last?  It could be another 10 years, or it could be six months, or it could be that I threw $100 in parts at it and couldn't fix it.  So I said fuck it and spent $350 on a new one.  Had we not been about to have a newborn it would've been a different decision, but I just didn't need that stress right then.  Oh well.

I absolve you of this behaviour. This is what money is for. For solving genuine problems for which money is the answer.

[Daleth]

If the judge can "disregard all written agreements" for the welfare of the child, I don't see why they couldn't still go after the sperm donor, or for that matter the birth parents of the adopted child.   Why would a written agreement involving a doctor be any different than one not involving a doctor?

After adoption, the birth parents have no legal connection to the child. They have no more financial responsibility for her than some random dude at the bus stop does.

As for written agreements, the point of requiring a doctor is to make sure of two things: (1) the conception really happened as donor conceptions do, via insemination rather than sex; and (2) the agreement predates the conception, so you know for sure that having the guy be only a sperm donor rather than a father really was their intention from the get-go, and they're not just trying to play the system by turning an "oops" pregnancy into an "I'll let you raise the kid by yourself with no hassle as long as you don't ask me for any money."

[Daleth]

Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

Medicaid has a five-year look-back provision. If your spouse's grandparents sold their house less than five years before needing to apply for Medicaid, that sale would've been overturned (or rather, the kids would've had to pay the home's value back to the grandparents, and the grandparents would've had to spend down that money before they qualified for Medicaid). The same is true of trusts and basically any transaction where money leaves the pockets of the person who later seeks Medicaid.

[Daleth]

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

It wouldn't destroy surrogacy at all. I haven't seen the decision but the news articles I saw said that the judge concluded both that the sperm donor wasn't the father, in part because he had little or no contact with the child, and that the mother's former partner was the other legal mother. So my guess is the ramifications of the decision are only relevant where the woman who gets pregnant with donor sperm has a spouse or partner she intends to be the co-parent. In other words once the kid has two legal parents (or people who should be considered legal parents), of whatever gender, the state can't go after a third person for child support.

As for surrogacy, the overwhelming majority of surrogacy in America is gestational surrogacy, meaning that the surrogate isn't the one whose eggs are used. The intended mother or an egg donor provides the eggs. That requires IVF; it's totally impossible to do without a doctor. So a case based on "there was no doctor involved so you're the dad" has no bearing on 99.99999% of the surrogacy cases out there.

[mm1970]

Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

Medicaid has a five-year look-back provision. If your spouse's grandparents sold their house less than five years before needing to apply for Medicaid, that sale would've been overturned (or rather, the kids would've had to pay the home's value back to the grandparents, and the grandparents would've had to spend down that money before they qualified for Medicaid). The same is true of trusts and basically any transaction where money leaves the pockets of the person who later seeks Medicaid.

It was way more than 5 years.  Probably at least 10, if not 20.