<p>TatinG, you are fortunate not to have a sibling who is on drugs, steals from the family, and refuses to get help. That’s how people end up living in a “cardboard box in a slum.”</p>
<p>This situation happened in Germany. Laws are probably different there. Here though, thre are some states that, IIRC, make a family member can get stuck with a deceased parends debt. In some cases, the heirs would close the estate and fail to pay medical or credit card debt and then take the $ from the estate . <a href=“http://www.cardratings.com/dying-with-credit-card-debt.html?WT.qs_osrc=FXN”>http://www.cardratings.com/dying-with-credit-card-debt.html?WT.qs_osrc=FXN</a></p>
<p>I’d probably care for my sister if she needed it, and I would for my parents but it’s unlikely that they will need it, given their current assets and how long my dad expects himself and my mom to live.</p>
<p>Though if I was to care for anyone, I would probably ask that they live with me so I don’t have to spend as much on rent. </p>
<p>I don’t think either will have these huge nursing home bills. I know my mom certainly wouldn’t ever live in one, and I don’t think my dad is partial to the idea ever but he’s still the type who might if he was no longer able to care for himself at all. </p>
<p>Anyway, on the subject, this seems like a completely ridiculous law if the aim is freedom, but pretty sensible if the aim is orderliness as is likely here. I don’t know enough about German culture to have any idea if that’s a factor in the difference in attitude between Americans and Germans, but it would be an explanation. Germany however is strongly oriented towards orderliness which you can see in every organizational difference between USA and Germany, so it seems to be something I would expect from Germany. It helps reduce burden on taxpayers (instead shifts it to offspring), and still provides care for the elderly. If this is the way things are done in Germany, from a legal standpoint I don’t see why it should matter whether or not the man was estranged from his father or now. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But this is a bit inconsistent legally and logically. </p>
<p>It was the father who chose to cut off all contact with the child in question at 18 and compounded it by making a “female acquaintance” his heir. In such a situation, if one wants legal and logical consistency, it’s the female acquaintance who should have been paying that fine…not the son whose father cut off all contact with him. She received his estate and he seemed to have cared/had more contact with her after cutting off his son. </p>
<p>And the court’s reasoning that “the father did provide for him as a minor” is extreme weaksauce. </p>
<p>That was his legally obligated duty as a father to a minor…and one he’s likely to have done the bare minimum of considering he felt entitled to cut off all further contact with said son when he turned 18. Sorry, but that’s cold and shows he’s doing the bare legal minimum as a parent…and being a jerk about it to boot.</p>
<p>In many ways, what this German local court is advocating is behavior not too far removed from hateful ex-es who still feel entitled to ask their former bf/gf/spouse for favors* even though they hated/resented him/her to the point of wanting a complete break in the relationship with minimal/no contact for years/decades. </p>
<p>Sorry, but once a relationship ends…ex-es are no longer entitled to demand onerous favors unless it’s related to facilitating joint custody of children they’ve had together. Especially if there hasn’t been any contact since the breakup for decades…</p>
<ul>
<li>Many friends have been so softhearted/naive enough to fall for such demands for favors ranging from a secret family recipes to exorbitant loans they couldn’t really afford. Thankfully, I was able to talk some sense into the friends being asked the latter so they weren’t taken to the financial cleaners by hateful ex-es who entitlement to ask for such special favors had long expired.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Since an adult of any relation has no control over the financial decisions of any other adult, it makes no sense that the son should be liable for his father’s debts. I can see how he might be held responsible for his father’s care (and vice versa) <em>before</em> the fact if the father is indigent, but not after, if the son had no say in his father’s care and expenses. </p>
<p>The way it usually works in the US is that the state (in the case of Medicaid patients) has a claim against the patient’s estate. It is odd that in this case it sounds like there were some assets passed down in the estate without the government getting its share off the top.</p>
<p>Why wasn’t the female acquaintance asked to pay the fines?</p>
<p>@cobrat Secret recipes? Really?! :-" </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Not only did he end up getting embarrassed at being taken advantage of by an ex…his family were pretty incensed he gave away a recipe from a family collection kept secret and handed down for several generations. </p>
<p>BTW: Since you’ve mentioned spending some time in Germany, what do you make of this off-the-wall ruling? Maybe I’m mistaken, but its lack of logical consistency and sense is such that it doesn’t seem very “German”. </p>
<p>^^^ This is truly the law in ALL of Germany. My dad is from Germany. I have a half sister who still lives there and she visits me every year. Our father was in a long term nursing facility for years in The States. My half sister and I always talked about this at great length because of the problem our generation is having in Germany caring and being responsible for their parents care. She sees it as fortunate that our father spent his last years in the US…where we did not have to be responsible financially. </p>