If mom can't pay, adult child must (Pennsylvania's filial statute)

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | July 12, 2009 | Monica Yant Kinney

[2ndDivisionVet]

This one's going to blow baby boomers' minds. It concerns a little-known law dating to Elizabethan England suddenly being enforced with gusto in Pennsylvania. The law can force adult children to pay their parents' health-care costs.

If Mom and Pop can't pay, you pay. If they have the money but refuse to pay, you pay. If you don't, watch your credit rating sink under the weight of a legal judgment that will haunt you for life.

It happened to Don Grant. It can happen to you.

The Havertown man is nearly 50 and struggling to pay his mortgage and $100,000 in student loans incurred by his daughter, a recent Albright College grad.

Last year, Grant was sued because his mother, Diana Fichera, did not pay an $8,000 bill at a Delaware County nursing home, where she rehabilitated after surgery.

Grant went to court with his half-sister, who was also sued. He told the nursing-home attorney that he's estranged from his mother and that Fichera has income from Social Security plus two pensions.

The nursing-home lawyer told Grant that all would be resolved if Fichera paid up. When she again refused, the judgment was entered against the whole family.

Family strife costly

Grant says that his relationship with his mother "has always been strained" and that he was raised primarily by his grandparents.

"It was a big house in Drexel Hill," he recalls. "She lived on the second floor. We lived on the first. Sometimes, she'd show for dinner, sometimes not. She never did homework with us."

Grant says his mother has long overspent and mismanaged her money. Fichera declined to comment through her daughter, Grant's half-sister, who asked not to be named.

Public records show pages of judgments and liens against Fichera, 71, who receives a $1,434 monthly pension after working for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for 23 years. (Unlike wages, which can be garnisheed, Social Security and pensions are generally exempt from seizure.)

In 2006, the Wallingford Nursing & Rehab Center sued Fichera for not paying a $28,000 bill.

Two years later, she accrued another debt at Brinton Manor in Glen Mills. This time, the nursing-home lawyer got creative.

Old law, new use

Blue Bell lawyer Brian Scott Dietrich represents Brinton Manor, but did not return phone calls for comment. Pennsylvania State University law professor Katherine Pearson knew why as soon as I mentioned his name.

"There are three or four major lawyers in Pennsylvania who specialize in representing nursing homes and hospitals, and one of their favorite tools is Pennsylvania's filial statute. Dietrich is one of them," says Pearson, an expert on the arcane issue, also known as "support of indigents."

"These attorneys will bring suit against adult children even if the children live out of state and even if it's been years since they had contact with their parent."

The legal concept of requiring children to support their parents predates colonial America.

"It's a noble theory, a law to make families responsible for each other," Pearson notes. "It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now."

In fact, she adds, filial cases usually "end any real possibility of the family reuniting."

Pay now or pay later

Grant learned of Fichera's rehab debt in a letter from Dietrich's office in March 2008.

"I said, 'Don't contact me. I have nothing to do with her. You're barking up the wrong tree.' "

A month later, Grant was laid off. In August, he was sued.

By the time of the court hearing, Grant had found work for less pay at a firm that sells foreclosures. "I talked to a lawyer," he says, "but he wanted $400, and I didn't have it."

Representing himself was an expensive mistake. Grant never knew he had a narrow window to appeal. Now, it's too late.

"Most of the time, the nursing homes will still compromise and settle, but not always," Pearson says. "Once they have a judgment, they feel empowered."

So a hurt and angry son is left with a dilemma he can't afford: Go into debt to pay his mother's debt, or ignore it and brace for the worst.

"If I go to buy a car, it's going to affect my credit," he says. "If we try to sell the house, it will come up."

Needless to say, Grant no longer speaks to his mother.

"The worst part? She's got as much money coming in as we do," he says. "And I'm being held responsible for her irresponsibility."

[DB]

So in other words, she can refuse to pay whatever she likes and force her children to pay the tab... And there is nothing they can do to stop in the future as well? So if the son doesn’t pay does it pass to his children?

Insanity...

[rbbeachkid]

Well I guess I am alone in my reaction BUT...

I would rather they held the children responsible for their parents than hold me (completely unrelated) and all the other taxpayers liable and force us to pay for their upkeep. Let the families work it out between themselves.

[DB]

True.

Some will be a little more subtle in retribution than just shooting it out.

[dr_lew]

YOU said it! ... I didn't say it!

Boomers and their parents are sitting on a great pile of money. It's a sad thing to conceive of health care providers as jackals and vultures, but it's a view that has seemed inescapable to me for some time now.

[DB]

Well that isn’t the choice.

The mother has means. It should be between her and those she did business with and nobody else including the taxpayer.

[rabscuttle385]

*Ping!*

[rabscuttle385]

“Filial responsibility” laws like the one in Pennsylvania are on the books in other states, just too.

“States with filial responsibility laws are: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.”

http://everydaysimplicity.blogspot.com/2006/02/filial-responsibility-laws-list-of.html

[rbbeachkid]

I agree and the son’s big mistake was to represent himself. But if we are talking about broad policy positioning, families should be made to take care of each other before the rest of the population is made to take care of them.

[freedomwarrior998]

This isn't news... A lot of States have these laws.

http://www.dsl.psu.edu/faculty/pearson/FilialResponsibilityStatutes.pdf

[freedomwarrior998]

Well I guess I am alone in my reaction BUT... I would rather they held the children responsible for their parents than hold me (completely unrelated) and all the other taxpayers liable and force us to pay for their upkeep. Let the families work it out between themselves.

No, you are not alone.

[rbbeachkid]

If the mother has the means, a cross complaint would probably have taken care of his situation.

[conservative cat]

Oh, good- my state is not on that list!! I think Germany has a similar law. Since my grandfather is still alive, my mom is scared they will come after her if he ever needs extended care (by the state).

[ansel12]

Take away a man’s ability to make a living, it is good as murdering him.

I'm guessing that you are an economic conservative?

[2ndDivisionVet]

I would add that if you were hurt, injured, sick, disabled, or became chronically ill while in the service or within a year of discharge, you should file for a VA disability ASAP. It is not retroactive to your dates of service, only to the filing date. Even if you were on leave (vacation) when it occured: http://www.va.gov

The best bet is to use one of the veterans organizations, such as Disabled American Veterans (DAV), AMVETS, The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), etc. They usually have National Service Officers (NSOs) co-located with the VA Regional Offices or VA Medical Centers that will assist you in filing and be your advocate before the VA. They will also help with the pensions you mentioned.

[count-your-change]

But you realize that the amount of taxes you pay will be the same either way, don’t you?

[Windcatcher]

This reminds me of a murder case a few months ago where someone walked up to a lawyer in the Trenton area, shot him in the head, and walked away. I don’t know if he was ever caught, but I remember the people on the local news wringing their hands and exclaiming, “what could have caused someone to do that to him? It doesn’t make any sense!”

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. “Doesn’t make any sense?” They’re kidding, right? Was he one of those “parasite” lawyers? The amoral ones who would sell their own mother to a slaver in the darkest pit in Africa for a percentage? The ones who would bankrupt and destroy a family so they could make their Lexus payments? Was he one of *those* lawyers? I have no idea, but it seems like you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one.

Of course it made sense — or, to be precise, it could have made sense, with the right lawyer and the right victim.

[DesertRhino]

“and the son’s big mistake was to represent himself.”

can’t remember chaper and verse,, but one of our founding fathers had a quote along the lines that law is clearly oppressive. when an honest and literate person cannot understand it without a paid specialist.

[nathanbedford]

I know that New Jersey had a similar statute back in the 1960s but I do not know if it is still on the books. Even then I was taken aback upon reading it. If I recall correctly, the statutes also provided the right in the state to collect for welfare payments.

These statutes originated in the agrarian era when the family was anchored on the farm and the whole idea, for example, of intestate secession was grounded in an agrarian economy. For example, I have had farmers tell me that in the old days they used to draw a line down the middle of a barn and all the grain stored on one side belonged to the widowed mother and on the other side to the children. Her grain was her dower interest. In that context, it made sense for the kids who grew up and took over the farm to take care of the hospital bills for their parents just as their parents had taking care care of them.

One of the purposes of The Frankfurt School was to do away with the institutions which retarded the onset of communism. The founders identified the family as a bulwark against communism which must be destroyed. They set out to do that and they succeeded brilliantly. No-fault divorce, abortion on demand, the systematic attack and ridiculing of the father as an authority figure, all played a part in undoing the nuclear family as it had existed during the agrarian age. These communists were also greatly assisted by a technological revolution that moved people to the cities and generally spread them across the country away from the family farm. Perhaps more than any other factor the birth control pill contributed to the fracturing of the nuclear family. For one reason and another, the agrarian model no longer applies yet the statute lives on.

Rather than a reflection of the unity and cohesion of the nuclear family living on the farm, these statutes now constitute a direct threat to the survival of the family unit.

[denydenydeny]

Unlike wages, which can be garnisheed,

"Garnishee" as a verb is really an illiteracy.

[MaxMax]

Its exactly like whats going to happen with the national debt

The DemocRAT Brats will have to pay it all? YAY!