PDA

View Full Version : parents sue children for support



Rachel
07-05-2010, 10:02 PM
I believe that children should help parents in their old age, but the two instances here are appalling to me and I disagree vehemently. What do you think?

Payback time for parents
A B.C. case is the thin edge of a growing trend: parents suing their adult children for support

It's been 16 years since Ken Anderson saw his mother. His parents moved out to B.C.'s West Kootenay region when he was 15, effectively abandoning him in the town of Osoyoos, 200 km away. (His dad, who worked for Labatt, had been transferred.) Ken was the family baby; by then, his four siblings had moved out. He dropped out of high school and took a job at the local Husky to support himself. He couch-surfed and, for a while, lived with a neighbour.

Eventually, a kindly boss let him crash in his basement. "The past is past," says the 46-year-old father of two, who lives in Oliver, where he runs a logging truck business. He's never been angry with his folks. But he's never tried to rebuild the relationship either. His dad died years ago and in 30 years, he's seen his mom Shirley fewer than 10 times. Imagine his surprise then, when one fine day he was served with papers announcing he was being sued for parental support.

Embrace the Chaos: 9 things I'd like back from my kids

Shirley, who is 71, has lupus, and has never worked. She and Ken's father split up in 1990, and her support largely dried up when he died, soon after the divorce. She's since amassed a credit card debt totalling $28,000 and is seeking $250 per month from Ken and an undisclosed sum from three of his siblings. (Neither she nor her lawyer were available for comment.)

More Stories from Macleans

Our pension system is a mess, and fixing it won't be easy
The problem with not having kids
Why old people know more than young people
A home is seen as a ticket to retirement. But is that wise?
As Ken found, every province except Alberta has so-called filial duty laws requiring adult children to support a parent who may be dependent due to age, illness or financial straits. They owe their existence to English "Poor Laws," and date back to the Depression-before the creation of the modern welfare state. Since then, government has introduced the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security, recognizing its duty to look after the elderly. Filial duty laws should be abolished, says Vancouver lawyer Lorne MacLean. The B.C. Law Institute agrees. Three years ago, it began calling for the repeal of the law, calling it a stopgap response to the problem of poverty among the elderly.

In the '30s, "seniors," people aged 65 and older, made up less than five per cent of Canada's population. Today, they total 4.3 million: roughly one in seven. Within five years, seniors-many struggling with rising costs of living and health care-will outnumber children under 15, putting profound strains on Canada's health and home-care systems and pensions that, in many cases, have been critically underfunded for years. Already, Ottawa is weighing options to address a looming shortfall with the Canada Pension Plan.

Government, not children, should be responsible for their welfare, says Law Institute lawyer Kevin Zakreski. In 2005, Alberta repealed its parental support laws. England did away with its in 1948. But that's a dangerous proposition, says Wendy Bernt, a family lawyer practising in Victoria. For some, she says, these statutes are a "last line of defence against abject poverty." Raising kids is an expensive business, she adds. "If that's where your income went, it's hard, morally, to say parents don't have a right to support." Where moral and societal pressures aren't enough to enforce family responsibility, she says, it may be necessary and proper for the courts to intervene.

Claims like Shirley Anderson's have only recently come before courts in significant numbers, but more like them are expected to hit the courts in the coming decade. Queen's University law professor Nick Bala says the bulk of claims (including six reported in B.C.) date to the past 10 years. And it's not just in Canada. In Singapore last year, the number of parents filing for filial support doubled from a year earlier, to an annual 200 cases. Bala isn't predicting a sudden flood of cases. Parents, even if destitute, will be reluctant to enforce the obligation out of shame. And unless "sonny boy's a stockbroker driving a Lexus," success isn't guaranteed, says Surrey lawyer David Greig: a child must have means to pay support.

In August, the Andersons go to court. The judge will consider the children's liabilities, responsibilities and net worth. Ken and his wife, Sherry, say they have little money saved for their own retirement.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., where some on the political right argue for wider enforcement of these laws to ease the growing strain on the public purse, third parties have begun using them to force adult children to pay their parents' bills. Last year, Don Grant, an unemployed Pennsylvania dad wrestling with a mortgage and his daughter's college tuition, was successfully sued by a hospital using the state's filial statute when his 72-year-old mom skipped her bill. Grant, raised by his grandparents and estranged from his mom, didn't even know she was in hospital.

Information is current as of the original date of publication.

Jez
07-05-2010, 10:11 PM
Government, not children, should be responsible for their welfare, says Law Institute lawyer Kevin Zakreski.
No, it's the responsibility of the individual. Not government (which means "the taxpayers"). Not the children.


In 2005, Alberta repealed its parental support laws. England did away with its in 1948. But that's a dangerous proposition, says Wendy Bernt, a family lawyer practising in Victoria. For some, she says, these statutes are a "last line of defence against abject poverty." Raising kids is an expensive business, she adds. "If that's where your income went, it's hard, morally, to say parents don't have a right to support." Where moral and societal pressures aren't enough to enforce family responsibility, she says, it may be necessary and proper for the courts to intervene. No, it is not hard, morally or otherwise, to say that parents don't have a right to support. Parents made the decision to be parents. No one forced them. They made an adult decision to have children and that means spending their money on their children.

People need to grow up and take personal responsibility for themselves. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that when you get old, you need money. So start saving when you're young! These people have a lot of nerve demanding other people's money because of their own choices and poor money management skills.

Rachel
07-05-2010, 10:20 PM
For me, it is not a problem to support any other family members, including parents, without whom we would not have a life. It is true we did not ask to be born and all that, but for me, I am grateful for my life. I also believe in helping other family members outside the family unit, or who have left, that need help. It is just a fundamental and proper thing to do. For me, to know someone is in need of help because of health issues or trauma or genetic problems or whatever, and not do what I could is criminal. I don't now nor never will believe that I am not responsible to help others as much as I can. So I have no problem with the basic thought of helping one's aging parents . But to take children to court , parents that have done nothing to earn even respect is hard to accept. It is just more abuse in my opinion and I , as a judge, would not rule in the parent's favour.
On the other hand in many many countries family must support one another and not look to the government to do it. Whatever taxes we each pay in our jobs, it does not rise really to the level that it could soley support an individual monthly with all the expenditures needed to care for that one. So I think helping out and giving the tax payer a break is a responsible thing to do.
However, I can see this is a very emotional issue and many have very cut and dried feelings about it. The way that government wastes money though and does not even use it for it's intended purposes , and the way that the economy is going for right now at least, will bring this issue up to the surface soon I have a feeling. I cannot imagine how it will end.

Jez
07-06-2010, 12:50 AM
For me, it is not a problem to support any other family members, including parents, without whom we would not have a life. It is true we did not ask to be born and all that, but for me, I am grateful for my life. I also believe in helping other family members outside the family unit, or who have left, that need help. It is just a fundamental and proper thing to do. For me, to know someone is in need of help because of health issues or trauma or genetic problems or whatever, and not do what I could is criminal. I don't now nor never will believe that I am not responsible to help others as much as I can. So I have no problem with the basic thought of helping one's aging parents .

I guess I should clarify. I have no problem helping my parents, and will gladly help my parents when I can. I hope my parents planned well and don't need help, but if they do, I will help them however I can. What I resent is the idea of the government forcing payment. That is not the role or responsibility of the government. Culturally, we want to foster the idea of children helping their aging parents if they need help, but we also want to foster the idea of personal responsibility. Culture, not law, should be the impetus for children assisting their parents. Further, with the government acting as middleman in situations like Social Security, there's more waste than not. It's a ponzi scheme, and it's about to come (oh so predictably) crashing down.

margaine
07-06-2010, 06:02 AM
Very disturbing. If one can help one's aging parents, that's nice and all. But I actually dislike the idea that people have an obligation to take care of their parents in old age. If you love and/or care about your parents or other family members, then you give help (financial or otherwise) if you can. But the idea of hands-down obligation hearkens back to another time or another context - the family runs a farm/plot of land, when the parents are too old to work the land, the kids work the land. Children are produced in order to have bodies that can keep working the land (or whatever it is - tend the animals, whatnot). That kind of a thing is upsetting on its own. But for the most part in the US and Canada - rich or poor, people grow up, move out, get their own jobs or have their own failures. Their successes and failures are their own, and parents should not count on their children to support them in old age. Definitely the law should have nothing to do with this, but even beyond that - I think the cultural idea that "children owe their parents" is highly disturbing in the contemporary industrialized world. As human beings, we may want to help those close to us when they are in need or suffering, but that is different from obligation or owing or paying back. If the parents planned to have a kid, then they should have known what they were getting into. If the parents didn't plan to have a kid, then they should have planned better!

margaine
07-06-2010, 06:26 AM
. . . and for further clarification - if parents do have a farm or family business, they can't count on their children carrying it on! of course there is no end to stories and movies and tv shows where that is a central conflict. you'd think with all of those examples, parents would stop expecting children to carry on the family business. ;)

Jez
07-06-2010, 01:02 PM
I wonder, for those against this sort of legislation, what are your thoughts on Social Security or welfare? They're essentially the same thing.

musi
07-06-2010, 01:17 PM
My Grandma once said that she gave birth to children so that they would take care of her when she is old. To which my Mom replied that she gave birth to children because she wanted to have children :) Actually, my Grandma despite the said phrase is quite ok with her attitude and in many cases refuses any attempts on help, but I just remembered about it when I read the article.
For me it is another issue as well - should parents be helping children always? I have been independent for many years and not asked my parents for support (which they never refused, when, at times, I asked) and yet my boyfriend told me that here, for example, the whole idea of life is to have children and help them on their way (in my "independent" state of mind that raises so many issues that I cannot even begin to count them) - the reproduction idea is going so strongly, I am incredibly amazed :) So I think when I have children I probably will try to support them, but there has to be a time when children are on their way and away. And I can hardly imagine my children suing me for support or me suing them for support just cause they are doing so great, for example. And yet, I think in healthy families helping each other would come naturally, while suing each other doesn't give a good example of love :)

Rachel
07-10-2010, 09:43 PM
I think helping should be from the heart not under compulsion. Sadly though many have no love for parents or parents for children; and people have to eat and live and such. I don't know really what the answer is. Love compells us to do things, that should be enough. And love should compell a parent do take the best care of their children . But reality is things happen and who other than family has the responsibility in the end/ I suppose Hilary Clinton touched upon a truth, It does take a village to raise a child, and it does take a village to care for the elderly.

Rachel
07-10-2010, 09:47 PM
I asked my sons their feelings. Their feeling is it is the most natural thing in the world to take care of your family, whatever his or her title. My daughter does not feel that way per say but I think she would do it if asked. For me, I think as long as you have breath you do all you can to earn your daily bread. But there are circumstances that come along. For me, I was in the middle of my law school when all this happened to us and it was decided that the way I would earn my bread until writing once more and carrying on with studies would be to raise Hasia and do all for her that the speech therapist and aid would do, saving the government a huge amount that would naturally be spent on her special needs. It felt wierd and now I am finally writing again plus all the other. So I guess I could have been looked upon as a burden, but as my sons said I raised my children alone for a great part of their lives, doing whatever it took with no family to help. For them it is even steven. we are all different really.