999 Knights Member
Mother Sues for Parental Support
So I just happened to read this article this morning, and it made me wonder:
Do you think it is a child's duty and legal responsibility to support his or her parents? If so, at what point, and how much? What kinds of exceptions would there be? Or, do you think it should simply be the job of society to care for the elderly? Should anyone be responsible for them?
Just curious to hear some thoughts... I tried asking my mother was she thought about this and she said she'd definitely sue me if I didn't take care of her. I couldn't really tell if she was joking or not.
Last edited by indescribable; 09-23-2011 at 09:45 PM.
Super Senior Member
Why is it that people always make it seem so imperative that you be sure to save for retirement, etc, then pull crap like this out on their kids? Screw those hypocrites.
It's a very controversial situation that is best solved by being avoided.
Celestial-Fox is right, that saving for retirement is the first step one should take to make sure you aren't in poverty as an elderly person. Yet, I've hread stories, in this economy, of people not even retired yet whose 401Ks and savings are depleting due to the economic situation. Is it fair that those people are suddenly screwed?
Ideally, you want to raise children so that they will want to take care of you. But situations vary; some people can be great parents but the living environment and immediate surrounding society is too much for their children and they end up troubled. There's also the consideration that children technically did not ask to be born; forcing them to take care of their parents could be considered an unfair obligation. Then again, they wouldn't be alive without them.
In this specific case, there's way too little info to make a call. In general, I would say no, it shouldn't be a legal obligation for children to care for their parents. It gives parents further incentive to treat their children well. I'd like to say the elderly should be guaranteed to be cared for by the government, but I can't see that flying with most people.
Teacup Ninja Tots
thats what superannuation funds are for, I think it depends on your culture and how your family grew up.
I don't think it should be the child's obligation but I guess it would be nice if someone would look after you even a bit if you get old and sick
Super Senior Member
The fact the kids don't WANT to help their parent says something. I'd give every penny I earned to my grandma, I owe her everything.
It is not and should not be the responsibility of a child to take care of a parent or parents. It would be a nice thing to do yes but should not be required.
Not everyone has nice or loving parents. I help out with rent and pay other bills as well as other bonus stuff I pay for in our house (just spent $150 on Halloween stuff for my sibs costumes and what not. As well as movie trips and mini stupid stuff shopping sprees to get crap my parents would never get them.). Unless your child is where they are today because of you (you paid for the college where they earned the degree to work in the field they do today and you supported them 100% morally and monatarily thru it all or something of the like) then you have no right to anything that they make.
It's how you treat your kids that's going to show them how to treat you later in life. That's not allways going to be how it is but usually it will.
My parents have done allot of cruel things to me while growing up and the only reason I stay and help out like I do is because my sibs. The one person I would bend over backwards to help is my older sister (helping her save for nursing school now) because she has been there when my parents refused to be. Treat your kids good because they deserve it not because they are potential profit or because you might need a kidney someday.
That reminds me! I really hate hearing crap about people having kids because they want a bigger tax refund. WTF IS THAT?! You seriously went and had another kid to use them for money?! People are scum!
I think that a well raised child whose parents did not mistreat them and had the money spare would probably support the parents in their hour of need anyway. In the name of keeping abusive people out of folks' pockets, no.
Super Senior Member
A legal responsibility? No. A moral obligation, yes. From a logical standpoint, it doesn't make sense for someone who's had, say, 65 years (normal retirement age) to work and save money to fall back on someone who's just started on a job and is possibly making a lot of investments into family and home. Assuming the parent can still work, there's even less of a reason. But if the parent is aging and sick or on their death bed, I think it's at least a moral obligation to provide some type of care for them as they couldn't care for themselves, even if they wanted. I come from a country where it's typical for kids to move back in with their parents after they graduate and help pay for living expenses. Most parents die on the bed they slept in their entire lives, not one in a hospital or nursing home.
But this is a moral crisis more so than a legal one. You may hate the lady, but does it really help you or your relationship to know you let your mother die slowly of disease? I don't like my dad. He wasn't there for the first half of my life and a dick at all other times. But it would do me no good knowing he died due to my negligence. 750 dollars a month is an impossible amount, but I would have no qualms with paying 100, given I had joint income w/ a spouse or an actual career. I make that in 2 days even with my crappy Petco job.
Super Senior Member
Originally Posted by CypressDahlia
Your Friendly Ban Hammer-er