<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/news/disowned-son-must-pay-estranged-fathers-care-court-rules/[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/disowned-son-must-pay-estranged-fathers-care-court-rules/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it fair?</p>
<p>Heck, no! </p>
<p>If the parent chose to disown a child as is within his/her rights, he/she also IMO forfeits any and all rights to make any further requests/demands of the disowned child. </p>
<p>Otherwise you end up with an unfair one-sided legal arrangement where the parent effectively gets his/her cake and eat it too while the disowned child is screwed both ways. </p>
<p>And citing the fact the father did support him as a minor is weak sauce…the father was doing what HE IS LEGALLY AND MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DO AS A PARENT to a minor. </p>
<p>To use an analogy from school…it’s like the head of a college’s academic honor society arguing that their award for topflight academic achievement should be awarded to a student for merely maintaining C level academic performance. You don’t give high achievement awards for someone who has done what he/she’s obligated to do as part of his/her parental responsibilities…especially if it’s likely to be a the bare minimum at that. </p>
<p>Fair? No. But a lot of life is not fair. Is that how the law works in Germany? If so, then, that’s the cost of living there.</p>
<p>I’ve read that there are such laws here in the US as well, but don’t know how the circumstances have to fall in order to be hit with such a verdict. </p>
<p>Wow…Germany is screwed up in this area…</p>
<p>"later wrote a will naming a female acquaintance as his heir.:</p>
<p>The money should have come from the estate prior to going to some GF.</p>
<p>It’s possible that there was no money to leave to the heir, or that whatever was there was used to pay down this debt. In the US, of course, the money in an estate goes to pay debts before it’s paid to anybody. And, if you’re going to have a law that obligates children to pay the costs of care of elderly parents, what, exactly, should terminate that obligation? In this case, the son was already an adult when the parents were divorced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMO, having a parent disown a child…especially if it happened decades ago should serve as an automatic termination of that obligation. </p>
<p>The father broke off contact with an adult child. Later, he wrote a will leaving his estate (if there was any) to somebody else. I guess that’s “disowning.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The working definition I’m using is emphasizing the breaking off of contact. If it’s just not getting an inheritance, that would be not giving an inheritance or “disinheriting”…and I don’t think that’s nearly as stark as being disowned. :)</p>
<p>For that reason, I really think that local German government which made that ruling are a bunch of dumbkopfs. </p>
<p>Some states in the US also require adult children to assume financial responsibility for their parents. </p>
<p>I wonder if it works the other way in Germany as well. If the adult son was on welfare and the father were still alive and had money, would the father be required to support the adult son? </p>
<p>I was curious about this so I looked it up and found this article.
<a href=“Adult Children, Aging Parents and the Law - The New York Times”>Adult Children, Aging Parents and the Law - The New York Times;
<p>On the pdf link , it mentions that judges use different criteria to determine this, including if the parent pays for the kids’ college education.
Looks like we CC parents are covered 
</p>
<p>Personally, I think no adult should ever be legally held accountable for the expense of another adult, unless maybe they are legally married at the time (or unless there is a legal contract, like a cosigner).</p>
<p>I’m quaking in my boots. I’m liable for a parent’s financially irresponsibility? Is it cocktail hour yet?</p>
<p>Most states do have filial responsibility clauses. They just have not been actively pursued. </p>
<p>I don’t think there is enough info in this German situation yet. </p>
<p>Acollegestudent, Medicaid has a 5 year look back rule and if kids got parents’ asset during that time, and it comes up in the audit they do, yes, they’ll go after it. So there are some laws on the books. </p>
<p>@cptofthehouse I think the medicaid rule is more about fraud and shifting assets to get below the asset limit while still keeping the benefit of the assets, though, not a hard and fast ‘kids are responsible for parents’ rule. In the German case, I think they just want someone to pay the bills. Bad precedent imho, but there will likely be more of it.</p>
<p>I know Pennsylvania has a filial responsibility statute. It’s very scary. Especially if only one (of many) children lives in Pennsylvania – that child could theoretically be liable for the full cost of care, not just a fair share of it. The statute does imply that there are limits based on the child’s ability to pay, but those limits are fuzzy.</p>
<p>The state has never tried to enforce the statute in connection with elderly people on Medical Assistance (Medicaid), although it was enacted as part of an MA reform. Several nursing homes have sued adult children of residents for nonpayment of bills when the residents’ funds were exhausted.</p>
<p>Here is the PA statute, in relevant part. Note that it also makes parents liable for the support of adult children</p>
<p><a href=“a”>quote</a> Liability.–</p>
<p>(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), all of the following individuals have the responsibility to care for and maintain or financially assist an indigent person, regardless of whether the indigent person is a public charge:</p>
<p>(i) The spouse of the indigent person.
(ii) A child of the indigent person.
(iii) A parent of the indigent person.</p>
<p>(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in any of the following cases:</p>
<p>(i) If an individual does not have sufficient financial ability to support the indigent person.
(ii) A child shall not be liable for the support of a parent who abandoned the child and persisted in the abandonment for a period of ten years during the child’s minority.</p>
<p>(b) Amount.–</p>
<p>(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), the amount of liability shall be set by the court in the judicial district in which the indigent person resides.</p>
<p>(2) For medical assistance for the aged other than public nursing home care, as provided in section 401 of the act of June 13, 1967 (P.L.31, No.21), known as the Public Welfare Code, the following apply:</p>
<p>(i) Except as set forth in subparagraph (ii), the amount of liability shall, during any 12-month period, be the lesser of:</p>
<p>(A) six times the excess of the liable individual’s average monthly income over the amount required for the reasonable support of the liable individual and other persons dependent upon the liable individual; or
(B) the cost of the medical assistance for the aged.</p>
<p>(ii) The department may, by reasonable regulations, adjust the liability under subparagraph (i), including complete elimination of the liability, at a cost to the Commonwealth not exceeding those funds certified by the Secretary of the Budget as available for this purpose.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can see more and more states and countries trying to get a relative to pay for the costs of caring for aging elders that have few/no resources. The alternative is for the state/nation to share those costs, which many folks aren’t too happy about either.</p>
<p>HI currently has no filial responsibility law in force but as a practical matter, many folks DO care for their aging relatives (or other loved ones who can’t provide for themselves). It’s partly cultural and partly a recognition of how very high the cost of living is in our state.</p>
<p>I’m always surprised to read occasionally about some celebrity or well known person who has a brother living in a cardboard box in a slum. You think they’d provide decent housing for the person just to avoid the bad publicity.</p>
<p>I don’t. I have one of those where I have a half brother and half sister whom I’ve only met a few times in my life. They are nice people, and fully self-sufficient and productive members of society, but I wouldn’t feel any obligation to care for them if they fell into bad straits. They’re not “family”; they’re strangers with whom I happen to share a biological relationship. I imagine it’s the same thing for these situations you’re referring to.</p>