The thought just occurred to me, there are very well off families, who "seems" (I know I am on thin Ice here) to be in a position to help out a caregiver of their own flesh and blood elderly or even other family members that they don't have time or want the responsibility but however, ... Its one thing to ask for help, and need help, Its another thing to take advantage of certain situations, friends and neighbors, when the struggles are on and they out deciding which home for the summer or which Cadillac to drive! especially when your walking a 71/2 mile trip just to get darn hearing aid batteries... Sorry... Anyway, instead of "child support" maybe or in addition to ... Best wishes with all my heart, I KNOW it is a hard thing when you really do know and care, blood or not...
I'm not saying siblings are excused for responsibility, just that they're related in a different way, making their responsibilities different as well.
Granted, it's ideal if siblings helped, but some aren't cut out for caregiving, some aren't willing, some aren't caring.
Deadbeat dads have been shirking their responsibilities for decades. Caregiving for elderly parents has probably been taking place for as long if not longer, but hasn't gotten the publicity it has more recently, especially since tv programs and the Internet have leveraged the ability of the care industry to publicize their services, and since Baby Boomers and Millenials have refocused their lives to provide for their elders and are making public their personal lives.
I've read that Chinese women were expected to care for their husband's elderly parents - that was just a given. It's probably changed a lot now that China has moved from those old traditional ways.
And if you want legislation to go after more wealthy family members, you'll have to wait until legislators are faced with similar situations.
In the case of tracking down and requiring financial help from Deadbeat Dads (and, by the way, they do the same thing with Deadbeat Moms) the parent is being held accountable for providing for the child because that is the law and it is our social expectations. You have a child, you support it. (Notice that the law doesn't make you visit or have contact or to be a good influence, etc. -- just that you pay.) As a society we do not have the same expectations about children toward there parents. And what a tangled job it would be to enforce that. There are 7 children let's say. One of them is very wealthy, but through marriage -- it is really in in-law, not the child that has wealth. Number two is disabled. The third hasn't been heard from in years and was last known to be homeless in another city. The fourth has a very good income, and spends some of it on therapy. She says her brothers sexually abused her and her parent knew but did nothing about it. The other three struggle to make ends meet. One has a handicapped child. So ... who does the government go after for elder support? All 7 of them? Only the ones who exceed a certain income level? How about the one who wants nothing to do with a parent who abused her? I can't even begin to imagine how such a law would work.
In your situation, maybe these really are selfish deadbeat daughters. Maybe your neighbor is reaping what he planted. You are very kind to be concerned and help.
I personally would hate to see the government get involved in saying which child has to support their parent, and for how much.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
See All Answers