#children of abuse

[socratically]

You Should Get Familiar With Filial Responsibility Laws

The state could force you to pay for your parents medical debts.

By Stewie Stewart

Hey Socratically Readers! Longtime no see. Apologies for the gap in posts for a bit there; back-to-back colds and then the flu really knocks you down a peg. Before we begin consider subscribing to this blog or my official newsletter Socratically.net. Now, let’s dive into one terrifying prospect—Being forced to financially support your parents by the State.

It was recently reported that “Baby boomers are becoming homeless at a rate ‘not seen since the Great Depression’“. While a tragic prospect of an increasing homeless population even above our predicted rates, it also raises another warning for the families of that generation—specifically Gen X and Millenials. You might soon have to bear responsibility for those aging parents due to Filial Responsibility Laws. Filial Responsibility Laws are laws designed to impose legal obligations on adult children to take care of their parents’ basic needs and medical care.

Currently, these laws have remained somewhat dormant for the last couple of decades thanks to advancements in welfare and healthcare accessibility. The only states with relatively active use of these laws are Pennsylvania, which has one of the oldest and most broad Filial laws, and South Dakota.

As those programs continue to be underfunded or, in the case of most Republican budget proposals, outright removed, you will start to see these forgotten laws start to pick up more steam as state governments aren’t able to pick up the tab on the growing financial needs of the aging population—and instead force you to pony up for your parent’s debts.

Stewie, I think you are being an alarmist!

Do you think so? I thought so too, so let’s do a thought exercise; imagine that you, like many of the current Millennials and Gen-Zers, have cut the proverbial cord on your parents. No contact, low contact, however you might classify it, your relationship with one or both of your parents is strained—a not uncommon phenomenon amongst the current generations.

In the United States, roughly 1 in 4 adults are estranged from their parents, up from the 7% estranged from their mothers and 22% estranged from their fathers, as reported in a study performed in 1997. This rift is caused for a variety of reasons;

Childhood Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Difference in Values

Lack of Support

This growing trend of separation is all part of the effort to break down the compulsory inherent loyalty to your parents for the simple act of birthing you or raising you. It is an obligation mandated to them by law and something expected societally, so to expect an eternal reward with no consequences for bad behavior is a form of entitlement to an extreme degree.

Now imagine those aging parents falling on hard times, even becoming homeless, turning to the state for financial and medical support, and the state instead turns to you. Suddenly, you are burdened with their medical care costs, housing costs, and general financial responsibility. Maybe if you are lucky enough not to make enough money, the state won’t be able to foist this on you, but if you were able to somehow carve out a successful life for yourself? Well, strap in because you are now fully responsible for your aging parents’ increasingly expensive care—and the state will ensure you pay for that care.

Look A Court Case Proving My Point…

In 2012, a case was brought to the Pennsylvania Superior Court: Health Care & Retirement Corporation vs. Pittas. In this case, the court held that John Pittas was liable for his mother’s nursing home bill totaling $93,000. John’s mother had left the country along with other members of his family to return to Greece, leaving behind the aforementioned bill at her former Nursing home. John, being the only remaining family member in the US, was then sued by the Nursing Homes parent company. The Superior Court held that the son had sufficient financial ability to support his mother, and Pennsylvania’s filial support statute does not require other possible sources of income to be considered before proceeding against one of the relatives listed in the statute. Lastly, the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding that the mother was, in fact, indigent.

John Pittas’ mother entered a nursing home for rehabilitation following a car crash. Upon recovery, she left the nursing home and moved to Greece with her husband and adult daughters, and a large portion of her nursing home bills went unpaid. As a result, the nursing home instituted a filial support action against Mr. Pittas, the only child still living in the United States, for nearly $93,000, under Pennsylvania’s filial support law.

While John initially prevailed before a panel of arbitrators, the nursing home appealed, and the trial court ruled in favor of the nursing home. John appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that the trial court improperly placed the burden upon him to prove his inability to financially support his mother. The nursing home presented four years of John Pittas’ individual and “S” corporation joint tax returns and bank account statements. The nursing home also elicited testimony from John that his net income was in excess of $85,000 (recall, this was decided in 2012). John testified that he could not financially support his mother because of other bills, but he failed to substantiate those other bills. Ultimately, the trial court found his testimony lacked credibility and that he had the financial ability to support his mother.3

The second issue raised on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider alternative sources of income available to John’s mother before finding John liable to the nursing home. 4According to John, before finding him liable, the trial court was obligated to consider other income sources, such as his mother's husband, her two other grown children, and her application for medical assistance that was pending (on appeal) at the time. The Superior Court held that “the filial support statute does not require a trial court to consider other sources of income or to stay its determination pending the resolution of a claim for Medicaid.”5 The nursing home had the ability to choose which family members to pursue for the outstanding debt. The court concluded that if John wanted other family members to share in the burden, he should have brought them into the case as third-party defendants.6

The final issue raised on appeal by John claimed the nursing home presented insufficient evidence for the trial court to find the mother “indigent.” The statute is silent as to the definition of indigent, so the Superior Court applied the common law definition. The court found the meaning of indigent “includes, but is not limited to, those who are completely destitute and helpless. It also encompasses those persons who have some limited means, but whose means are not sufficient to adequately provide for their maintenance and support.”7 The nursing home argued that the mother’s bank statement established the amount of social security income received and her share of her husband’s Veteran’s Administration benefit. This showed that the mother’s income was limited to $1,000 a month, an insufficient amount to provide for her maintenance and support, according to the court. John argued that the nursing home needed to present more evidence of his mother’s indigence, but he failed to establish that any such evidence existed. Therefore, the Superior Court held that the mother was indigent and her son was liable for her nursing home bills.8

While this is just one case in a state with a much broader application, let’s look at how those laws are applied in states like New Hampshire, Vermont, or Louisana.

New Hampshire’s Filial Laws are also kind of crazy.

Within New Hampshire, you may be subject to NH Statute 167:2—This statute dictates that your parents or even step-parents, permitting that step-parent provided care for you while you were under 18, could cause one of these Filial Responsibility Laws to go into effect permitting “weekly income or other resources are more than sufficient to provide a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health.”

The definition of “more than sufficient” is not defined at all, meaning it would be up to you, as a defendant, to provide a compelling argument to the court that you could not feasibly afford to bear financial responsibility for your parents. Refusal to pay could result in 60 to 90 days of prison as well as a requirement to pay the assistance that is being refused.

How about Vermont? Worse you say?

Vermont state statute 15 V.S.A. § 202 states that when an individual is found to have deserted or refused to support a relative in need, including spouses and adult children. An adult child who unreasonably neglects a parent in need could be imprisoned for up to two years and/or fined up to $300.00.

This law does have a silver lining in its ability to protect Spouses and Children who are unceremoniously abandoned by their parent/partner if they are being left without providing support or leaving them destitute. So that’s something, I guess.

Okay, but that’s got to be the worst one, right? Louisiana too? ALIMONY??

Louisiana might just be the worst one because it isn’t defined based on poverty but rather treats your parents and grandparents with the same responsibility as divorcees, requiring you to pay alimony.

Louisiana LA Rev Stat § 13:4731 “Alimony for support from children or grandchildren” provides that an individual in need may seek alimony from children or grandchildren, enforceable by the law. Further, both parents and adult children have the responsibility to provide financial support for basic life necessities if they are proven to have sufficient income.

Just more laws to keep you perpetually under the thumb of the generations that came before you.

I believe what bothers me the most about this is the prospect that even as adults with our own agency, we are being forced to clean up for the mistakes of our parents while they get to throw us away the second we turn 18. Most state statutes do not require a parent to provide substantial care for a child after they turn 18. Now granted, some of these states’ Filial laws do work in reverse, requiring parents to provide support for their children if they are deemed incapable of providing it for themselves—but the case for proving that is far more difficult than for your parents to require you to provide support.

I am not saying that these people do not deserve care or support; they absolutely do. But many of these laws are not written in compassion for the family, but rather to bolster the State’s ability to wave away responsibility for its residents and instead make it your problem. Why is it that we are required to pay so much in income taxes to these social welfare programs, and yet when push comes to shove, it would still fall on us to substitute the State’s responsibility for its citizens? Sure, Republicans want to remove these social welfare programs completely, but that doesn’t solve the issue at hand; it would only strengthen the State’s need to force the financial burden onto the children. If anything, we need further funding for these Social Welfare programs and an overhaul of the national budget. We don’t need to increase taxes to support our citizens; we just need to cut a sliver off of our military budget and shift it towards caring for our citizens. You can surely make the asinine argument that the military needs every dollar to keep us safe. But the Defense Department can’t even keep track of the money we give them; why would we not try to force them to act a little more frugally? National Security? We have the largest defense budget of any nation in the world by a magnitude of multiples. Surely, a reduction by even a small percent to our 1.6 trillion dollar defense budget would not cause any undo risk to our nation's security. In fact, strategists see little to no trade-off between defense spending and economic growth. Other strategists argue that the current level of U.S. defense spending is not necessary for U.S. security and is unsustainable in the context of a public health emergency, aging infrastructure, and growing public debt.

Thanks for reading. Consider sharing this post with anyone you may think will be affected by these laws. And consider subscribing to my official newsletter Socratically.net

[dreamcatcherie]

If you were neglected and abused as a child, I just want to remind you that it was not your fault. And you deserve better. You deserve love. You deserve someone who cares about you, your feelings, your dreams, your despairs. You deserve to be told you are a beautiful, kind, smart and divine being in this world. If you’ve never heard those words or haven’t heard them in a while, please listen and receive them from me. You are love, never forget that.

[intersectionalpraxis]

I documented multiple cases with @EuroMedHR of Israeli soldiers abducting blonde children from #Gaza claiming they might be abductee Israelis.

As Israeli forces are nearing my area of refuge, I just actually told my brother’s wife to dye her blonde daughter’s hair black! [@/MahaGaza on X.]

response to Maha Hussaini's report: "our families used ash to protect light-skinned children from being stolen by white settlers. In Palestine, they're dying children's hair to stop their children from being stolen. Removing children from an ethnic group to be raised by oppressors is one of the markers of genocide" [@/ 1KarenWyld on X.]

Journalist Maha Hussaini says that she has documented cases of Israeli soldiers kidnapping blonde children from Gaza claiming they might be abductee Israelis. (Illustrative photo) [@/ QudsNews on X. 01/07/24.]

I recently posted about this on my page. Thankfully a mutual of mine sent this to me. I addressed some of my perspectives about this horrifying and ongoing/developing story -which I will update here once I see Maha Hussaini or her fellow journalists sharing their documentations.

I just want to make sure that this is continues to be addressed/spoken about. This is beyond horrifying, and I hope those children are safely brought back to their families and loved ones -free from the IOF -because this is just insidious.

[sayruq]

Palestinian children in the Israel military detention system face physical and emotional abuse, with four out of five (86%) of them being beaten, and 69% strip-searched, according to new research by Save the Children. Nearly half (42%) are injured at the point of arrest, including gunshot wounds and broken bones. Some report violence of a sexual nature and some are transferred to court or between detention centres in small cages, the child rights organisation said.

[genderkoolaid]

there's a special kind of ableism (perhaps mixed with ageism) that comes from people who are older adults, who lived an largely abled life, who get like. personally offended by the idea that you, a young person, could DARE to also have a shitty body. like they view bad knees and fatigue as a badge of honor you get from living a long life & young disabled people don't deserve it? because we haven't suffered enough to... suffer? it's fucking bonkers. like yes ma'am I also make old person noises when getting up. i don't know why you feel like I'm taking something from you by being young and crippled.

[conurecc]

nothing like citing bible verses while justifying child abuse

ain't no hate like christian love

curiously the majority of states that allow for corporal punishment in school (read: literal child abuse) are run by Republicans

& this remains the most accurate meme i ever made

[craycraybluejay]

I also heavily resent the ever-present implication in mainstream media that at all touches on trauma that we cannot have any sympathy for Bad Victims. That it's evil to write a sympathetic Bad Victim. Hell, that it's bad to portray one at all at times. Writing a victim of trauma who's an addict or self-destructive is already an edge case-- writing trauma survivors who end up actually hurting someone else, being chronically "treatment"-resistant or having inconvenient ptsd, perpetuate the cycle, or are just kind of a total dick is considered an evil move. Instead of like. An actually complex and interesting artistic choice.

Idk. It pisses me off a lot how often Bad Victims[TM] are brushed under the rug and if you dare to speak of them/make art of them, let alone SYMPATHIZE with them you're an irredeemable monster. And that's just fictional characters. Don't even get me started on the way people treat actual people who have ptsd in a way that's at all inconvenient and problematic in their opinion.

[whatbigotspost]

I've realized that a LOT of very reasonable, not fascist people around me are kinda into the "parental rights" gibberish fundies are peddling these days……….on the surface.

By far the most compelling way I've challenged this thinking? Simply saying, "I'm just really concerned for all the kids who have abusive parents like mine..." and I share like 1 careful anecdote about what my childhood was like. I get a lot of "WOW 🤯 yeah, I really hadn't thought about that…" back. I've (not exaggerating) had 7 convos of the past month or so like this and most have thanked me for saying it.

People have all kinds of cognitive biases that affect their perception. To people who think of parents as "inherently good" due to their first hand experiences and/or biases, you quite literally have to point this stuff out to them.

Children's rights are constantly overlooked, dismissed, and ignored. A lot of people want to "have babies" but don't think of it as producing autonomous humans who deserve to be seen that way and not property of their parents. I’ll keep looking for more and more ways to underscore that fact.

[robotpussy]

like. the most asinine thing about child hatred is the fact that they are people!!!! they're just very young people!! you all want mercy and grace and compassion when you fuck up but you cant offer any of that to people who haven't even been on earth long enough to know how it works! you don't want kids in restaurants because of their "loud iPads and crying" you don't want them on planes you don't want them on public transport you don't want them outside you don't want them to exist and I find that so extremely scary that people genuinely think this way of children. you would demand they lose the little human rights they have if you could

[mothkingfi]

A little bit of a vent post about friendship, and why I like to be a guide in sky.

[furiousgoldfish]

abused kids daydreaming: but what if there was a situation where I got hurt... and someone cared and comforted me? what then??

abused kids: oh no I'm selfish and stupid for imagining this! How could I think my pain would matter enough for someone to comfort me, I need to get over myself and start living in the real life! Comfort doesn't exist and if I'm not tough I'm not going to make it!

[star-anise]

The thing about "parents' rights" and "protect the children [from hearing that other ways of life than ours are possible and okay]" is that it is literally, in the purest sense of the word, patriarchy.

The word literally means "rule by the fathers". We're generally used to hearing it describe how adult women can be dominated by adult men. However, that's not where patriarchy ends; feminists have been less eager to address how within that system, women can exercise power and domination of their own through the traditional gender roles of motherhood. Their maternal rights to power and dominance may have traditionally been lesser than paternal ones, but they were never less than their minor children's. Even single-mother or female-only families can be, in this sense, patriarchal.

Patriarchal families are a complex system that grants parents complete legal and practical control over nearly every aspect of their children's lives. The patriarchal family controls where the child lives, who takes care of them, what rules they have to follow, how they are educated, who they associate with, what healthcare they receive, what religion they practice, and whether they can work or control any money they earn or that is given to or for them.

Normally discussions of patriarchy are a lot more abstract. But right now it's very concrete and real: we are fighting to limit the family's control over children on issues where we can observe that families sometimes tend to make decisions that are bad for the children's welfare or that disrespect their human rights.

Whether a minor child can get an abortion. Whether they can receive gender-affirming care. Whether it's okay to lie or coerce your child to ensure they follow your religion. Whether they deserve to be educated about factual histories or scientific theories that are necessary to understanding the world around them. Whether they deserve to learn accurate, age-appropriate information about consent, setting boundaries, how their bodies and the bodies of other people work, what a normal range of gender and sexual identities look like, what healthy or unhealthy relationships look like, and what sex is, how it works, what its positives and negatives are, and how they might navigate the world, whether or not they ever want to have it.

Hell, on some levels we're still arguing about whether it's okay to hit your kids, or whether children have the right, similar to the rights adults have, not to be assaulted or abused.

Because there are a LOT of people who say: No. Parents should have 100% control over any or all of those issues. If the parent says no, the child is not allowed to do or have any of those things, and nobody else should be allowed to interfere and provide them to the child without their parents' consent.

Pointing this out often results in parents saying, "Oh, so you want just ANYONE to be able to go up and talk sex with kids? You want kids to be able to decide to jump off cliffs with nobody stopping them???" As though parents are the single protective force in the universe, the only thing standing between their child and the ravages of absolute chaos.

On the contrary: most of the time the argument is for children to receive care and guidance from adults who are monitored to ensure they treat children in safe and appropriate ways, who have spent many years studying the best and most rigorously tested of our collective understanding of how to prepare children for happy, healthy lives.

And we are arguing against people who believe that the only important qualification needed to refuse children that kind of care is to be ranked above them in their family hierarchy.

In conclusion...

Fuck the patriarchy. Children have human rights too.

[pynkhues]

There's something to the picture that all this season and the release of the first three seasons' scripts have painted of Logan and Caroline's divorce not as one of maternal abandonment, but one of maternal dislocation and suffocating abuse that's ruining me right now.

The way Caroline tried to take her children and flee in the dead of the night to Morocco, the way Logan took meetings with every worth-its-salt law firm in the city to cut off Caroline's access to them, wielding the legal system like an axe to an umbilical cord, the way Caroline's one recourse was to try and keep their position in the company, to keep them with something even if she gave it away later as they rejected her in adulthood. The way she stayed for their adolescence in New York even as Logan froze her out, the way she had to bargain for Christmas even in their adulthood, the way she sat in the pews with the rest of the women Logan loved and hurt and discarded while her children cried, with no tools or ability to comfort them, the way she sat as her son wrote her out of her own motherhood as he gave their father sole credit in creating them, stood opposite her daughter as she told her she wouldn't see it, i'm just gonna do it the family way like it was on Caroline and not their father, that she never got to see them.

Something about the way it feels like Logan trained them how to bark at her scent, to make sure she stayed away from the door.

[coochiequeens]

So glad she got away from the dude. And the church coming out to support her instead of just pleading for her to stay because...... "divorce makes Jesus sad" is a pleasant surprise.