Legally responsible relatives

[herbg76]

As far as I know, husbands and wives, and parents of minor children are legally responsible to support each other in NY state. Am I correct that no other relatives have this responsibility in NY and does this vary by state? I was very amazed when I read in a local weekly newspaper that the responsibility to support financially was much more expansive than what i have stated at the beginning of this paragraph!

[Judge]

You are correct. Parents of minor children are responsible to pay for the costs of caring for their children. There are many exceptions to this rule but you did not give me any facts. For example, a Court Order can change this rule; a custody Order can change this rule; being on public assistance can change this rule.

[herbg76]

What I was trying to get at in my prior "post" was that as far as I knew there were only two types of situations where relatives are responsible to provide support: husbands and wives for each other, and parents for their minor children. The article in my local paper in the Bronx, in a column for Seniors that usually comments (briefly) on news or events that might be of interest to seniors, baldly and without any specifics, stated that in about 30 states financial responsibilty to pay the debts of their relatives was extened beyond the two examples above, to include adult children for their elderly parents, grandparents for grandchildren, parents for adult children, etc. The advice seemed to be for seniors, not for the purposes of becoming eligible for public benefits, like Medicaid for nursing homes, etc., but in order not to have to pay for their childrens' and grandchildrens' debts, including health care for example, should transfer their assets to their loved ones now, rather than wait for their wills or trust funds to do the job. #1) these remarks about an extended familial responsibility in 30 unnamed states I believe are patently false and absurd and #2) I would appreciate some corroboration of this as I intend to write a letter to the editor to call this column into question. Can you tell me what you think and any ideas as to why would someone make up such a story?

[jilliaus03]

Without viewing the offending article in question, two situations pop into mind:

1) Whomever is left behind when a person dies (executor/administrator) is responsible for making sure that the debts of the deceased are paid off (debts of the estate). Sometimes this requires selling off the assets of the estate to satisfy the debts, leaving those who were supposed to inherit with litte left (or nothing at all).

2) When a person has to be placed in a nursing home, all of that person's assets have to be drained before that person is eligible to receive public assistance to pay for that care. You wouldn't believe how fast that money goes (even an inexpensive nursing home can cost $5,000 PER MONTH, without extensive medical assistance!). Even things like life insurance have to be sold off before Medicaid kicks in.

So basically, and especially if this article was targeted towards seniors, the article was most likely describing how a person of a certain age can preserve his/her assets so that there's something left for his/her loved ones when s/he dies. If you don't want to leave anything to anyone, disregard the article.

[autoinsurance1]

Hello everyone i am new here.