<p>@jym626 lol…all of those items were paid IN ADDITION to the $3k per month. The sibling wasn’t providing any of that out of the $3k. The 2 full-time caregivers were driving her to appts, and such. </p>
<p>So, on top of the $3k per month (and on top of the $8k per month for the 2 full-time caregivers), the sibling provided receipts for Rx’s, personal products, etc…and of course was reimbursed for those items. </p>
<p>the $3k per month was simply “rent”…lol.</p>
<p>So other sibs wanted MIL to live with them? Then why didn’t she? What would have been a “modest” amount? I still don’t see $100 as an outrageous amount. I know someone whose mother lives with them (with nearly 24 hour help for her), and it’s an inconvenience for the household. How could it not be? Whoever is inconvenienced should be compensated. What a shame some of the other sibs resent that.</p>
<p>I could definitely see paying for the inconvenience of having the mother plus live-in caretakers in my house. mom2ck, do you live in a big enough house that you wouldn’t notice this? Does the sister who took mama in have a huge house?</p>
<p>@CTTC </p>
<p>Because no one knew about this pricey arrangement. Once it came out a short-time before she died, another sibling DID moved MIL into their home…for “expenses only”.</p>
<p>Again, there were 2 full-time paid caregivers (one daytime, one nighttime) and the other sibs were taking mom on the off-days. </p>
<p>The money deal was kept hush. When it came out, a sib moved MIL into her home…which is where she was until she died. </p>
<p>We didn’t know any of this was going on. We knew that suddenly MIL was being moved to another sib’s house. That sib learned of the pricey deal and moved MIL to save money. Then we learned about the whole shebang after MIL died. We knew that MIL had 2 full-time paid caregivers and naturally we knew that MIL’s “expenses” were being covered. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>she has a very large home - 2 stories - plus a double basement. They’re empty-nesters, but both work full-time. </p>
<p>Anyway…I’m not losing any sleep over any of this. I just think it’s very weird. When my parents were invalids, none of us accepted any money for any inconveniences. Sure, Rxs and expenses were reimbursed, but none of us would have dreamed of accepting $3k per month just to have a parent live in our homes. And, we wiped fannies for free.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In that case, $100/day is a bad deal. Unless, of course, the Mom wouldn’t go with the other children or insisted on being with that specific one. </p>
<p>Families that can avoid these issues are fortunate. Its not always possible to do it, even with good intentions. </p>
<p>I just don’t understand how one or some of the siblings are making all these “executive decisions.” Was the mother more aligned with one or a few of them? Further, unless I am somehow missing the nature of these accounts, all siblings should be getting statements if they are jointly held. Certainly, they can walk into the bank and ask for statements or get up online and view them. After taking a look at withdrawals and checks written they should have a pretty good idea of what went on. If there are irregularities then BIL will have some explaining to do. But somehow I get the impression no one was paying too much attention to all this while MIL was alive so BIL took charge. Now he is pretty much used to doing what he pleases. </p>
<p>We cared for my ill FIL in our home for several years for free; however, if he was with another sib who wanted $100/day, I would not have had a problem with that. Having a very ill person cared for in your home (whether by you or outside caregivers) is a very big undertaking and can be emotionally draining. Your home is no longer just yours. Your time is no longer just yours. You are either on call 24/7 or you are now sharing your home 24/7 with outsider caregivers. The in home family dynamic changes even under the best of circumstances. There is no momentary escaping the fact that a loved one is declining, it’s always right in front of you pulling on your emotions. We were able to absorb the added responsibilities and expenses but I can understand those who may need a financial boost to lift them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is confusing- 2 fulltime caregivers sounds like 2 caregivers there simultaneously. The second statement sounds like there are 2 caregivers with 12 hr shifts. I guess thats still fulltime, but the first description sounded like they were there simultaneously, which would have been a bit much.</p>
<p>My dad had fulltime care, but I or the case manager still had to coordinate drs appointments, meds, fill out forms (for the long term care company) and one for the cregivers didnt drive, so that added tasks when that one wasnt there. Never mind the soiled chairs, couches, bed, carpet, etc in the house (it was his home). Its not easy having an elderly parent in ones home.</p>
<p>** crossposted with mythreesons</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While there may not be anything necessarily wrong with paying $100 per day for sibling to take care of the mother, if the money was drawn from funds that was eventually supposed to go to each of them…BIL’s lack of transparency isn’t making him or his position look good to those siblings.</p>
<p>The fact another sibling insisted on taking in their mother and refusing such a financial arrangement once this arrangement became known within the family is strong confirmation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One possible alternative short of going to court is to find out if other siblings with an interest in the joint account feel BIL’s behavior is as dubious at best as OP’s H, band together, and exert group family pressure to get BIL to back down and to be much more transparent about how he is handling what is essentially all their money. </p>
<p>Sometimes, having most of the family taking a strong open stand with a wayward family member can be quite effective…especially if BIL is concerned about his/his family’s reputation being permanently damaged within the family and/or their social circles/networks in the future going forward. </p>
<p>This is why I used to tell my dad to take it (his money) with him. After all, it was his. </p>
<p>We are encouraging my folks to spend and enjoy their money instead of worrying about leaving anything for all of us to fight about. Dad is doing his best to spend. ;)</p>
<p>harvestmoon - “I just don’t understand how one or some of the siblings are making all these “executive decisions.” Was the mother more aligned with one or a few of them” - I had to chuckle at this. My husband has 1 sibling and that sibling controls everything with their elderly mother. He made a unilateral decision to put a deposit down for space in an assisted living community near him - we were not consulted. A space became available this month - and he made arrangements with her to sell her condo and move her to this facility. We were informed only after the wheels were well in motion. I don’t disagree with his judgement, but I hate the way my husbsnd is pushed to the side - without even a pretense of involving him in these decisions. So yes, sometimes one sibling runs the show.</p>
<p>It’s that way in most families. One person really takes charge. In a family with say six offspring, it would be a huge headache if a consensus had to be made for every decision.</p>
<p>We have a similar situation in our family. One sibling really knows the financial end and “advises” the parents. Sometimes we do NOT agree with her advice (which we always hear about weeks after the money is already spent). But it’s not our money…it’s the parents money.</p>
<p>In the case of mom2’s MIL…it was the MIL’s money that was being spent (and yes, I do understand that $3000 was going to one sib only per month). But didn’t the MIL know? If so, her money, her choice. </p>
<p>I always felt bad about having an only child. In some sense, it may be simpler to be an only child after parents’ death.</p>
<p>Did MIL like to move to another kid’s house at the end of her life? Just wonder how that came about, Mom you are wasting our inheritance, 3K a month?</p>
<p>^^^ in many families there is oftentimes one child that the parent feels sorry for and they will allow that person to take advantage of them. Adult child doesn’t seem to ever grow up and if the parents have money they find a way to pocket as much of it as they can. Our friend’s brother did this-moved in with mom after dad died and she paid him 60 grand to stay there while he did nothing at all. Money kept increasing until he was taking over 100 grand and she had full time nursing staff taking care of her while he continued to do nothing. He got her to sign over the oceanfront vacation home to him so that was no longer going to be part of the inheritance for the other kids. I believe there was close to 10 million to be split between the kids after she died, and although the rest of the siblings are very well off they now have no use for this brother. It really rubbed them the wrong way having to watch this sibling screw over their mom for years.</p>
<p>I am handling my parents’ affairs. I have three siblings and I will discuss situations with one. The other two siblings have enough issues. I dont really want their input.</p>
<p>Am surprised they didn’t sue for undue influence, riverbirch</p>
<p>I guess it all depends on whether the living parent is competent to make decisions. If the parent has all their faculties then consultation with all siblings should not be necessary or expected. But once an elderly person has relinquished decision making over finances and living arrangements, then I think everyone needs to be part of the communication chain. Certainly, responsibilities should be split among all siblings - the care of an elderly person’s affairs can turn into a full time job. </p>
<p>I dont think everybody has to be involved and to think all the siblings are going to help is a fantasy in many cases.</p>
<p>A friend of mine has 4 siblings and two 90 year old parents. One sibling helps him but be has taken on most of the responsibilities. He would like more help but he isn’t going to get it so three siblings are out of the loop.</p>
<p>@jym626
He was taking what she was willingly giving to her poor son who wasn’t doing as well as the other children.</p>