Family support obligations - Child to Parent - Page 2

MoneyGal · 07-27-2010, 05:58 PM

Oh my goodness, I would never argue that this is a cut and dried legal issue.

I am clearly not making my point...which was supposed to be that, wow, did you know that children can be sued to provide financial support to a parent? I had heard about this, but had never heard of an actual case. And here is one!

All I meant to say was that the specifics of this particular case are less interesting to me than the fact that there IS a case. Can we be friends again?

FrugalTrader · 07-27-2010, 06:16 PM

I think it's time to have more kids

Four Pillars · 07-27-2010, 09:35 PM

HP - The kids might have a good story, but that's because the mother is suing them. They are allowed to defend themselves after all.

humble_pie · 07-28-2010, 07:20 AM

absolutely the children are entitled to defend themselves, but lurid tabloid-style journalism is not the venue for it. That venue will be the courtroom in august.

by throwing his or her 4 clients prematurely at the media, any lawyer for the 4 children is betraying the weakness of his or her case. Good lawyers don't seek out the media ahead of a trial. They don't attempt to try their cases through the press. They instruct their clients to maintain silence as well.

at the opposite end of the spectrum, look at how skilfully conrad black & attorney miguel estrada keep stringing the papparazzi along while telling them nothing more salubrious than that, yes indeed, his lordship did enjoy a glass of wine on the evening he regained the soon-to-be-history splendours of his mansion in palm beach.

investnoob · 07-28-2010, 01:21 PM

I think the article explains that none of the children have a lawyer. They are all representing themselves.

I think Ken was singled out for the story simply because the journalist knew that it would make for a more interesting story.

Kirkland · 08-18-2010, 01:20 PM

Wow, throws out the children, doesn't maintain a relationship and expects money in her retirement, insane.

Square Root · 08-19-2010, 07:53 AM

Although I stingily disagree with this support obligation, it is consistent with spousal support theory family law espouses. Idea seems to be that a person who has benefitted in someway by the sacrifice of another owes that person support later on to compensate them for the sacrifice. This is how spousal support is justified. Not that big of a leap to this case. Would make no difference if the parent was a "good" parent as it makes no difference if a spouse was a "good" spouse.

humble_pie · 07-27-2010, 07:35 PM

as for the whole question of enforced financial support between and among related adults, i believe that there may also be shadowy laws somewhere reciting that able grown children can sue their parents for permanent support because ... because ... i'm not sure why, maybe because they just don't feel like working.

i for one am flummoxed by stuff like this. Fortunately it seems so rare as to be freak news. Perhaps that's because there's a profound unconscious taboo against the repulsive idea of living off your own flesh and blood by legal edict ...

hmmmn are there any social historians among us. At some point quite recently in the evolution of western civ, people moved to care for their weak, ill & dying on a broad national and universal basis, rather than on an older & more primitive basis of tribal/kinship/family connection.

and are we moving back now.

a detail in the bc story. Some judge, as a temporary arrangement, has already ordered the 4 children to pay a token amount, something like $10 each, to their mother each month. I wonder if the trial judge might eventually hand down a permanent decision along such lines. Something that would oblige the children to pay a tolerable amount, while also obliging the mother to collect the best she can from social assistance available to her & to bloody well learn to live with the total.

i think the precedent of any decision permanently awarding any sum of money from the children to their parent will be heavy. No wonder barrister mcleod seized the pro bono. It's his chance to make legal history.

as MG says, some fizz for your retirement planning.

07-27-2010, 06:16 PM	#2
FrugalTrader Administrator Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Newfoundland Posts: 611	I think it's time to have more kids __________________ Million Dollar Journey - Follow my journey to one million in net worth..

07-27-2010, 09:35 PM	#3
Four Pillars Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Toronto Posts: 421	HP - The kids might have a good story, but that's because the mother is suing them. They are allowed to defend themselves after all. __________________ Mike Money Smarts Blog Investing and Personal Finance

08-18-2010, 01:20 PM	#6
Kirkland Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 29	Wow, throws out the children, doesn't maintain a relationship and expects money in her retirement, insane. __________________ Canada Finance

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-27-2010, 05:58 PM	#1
MoneyGal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,176	Oh my goodness, I would never argue that this is a cut and dried legal issue. I am clearly not making my point...which was supposed to be that, wow, did you know that children can be sued to provide financial support to a parent? I had heard about this, but had never heard of an actual case. And here is one! All I meant to say was that the specifics of this particular case are less interesting to me than the fact that there IS a case. Can we be friends again?

07-28-2010, 07:20 AM	#4
humble_pie Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 642	absolutely the children are entitled to defend themselves, but lurid tabloid-style journalism is not the venue for it. That venue will be the courtroom in august. by throwing his or her 4 clients prematurely at the media, any lawyer for the 4 children is betraying the weakness of his or her case. Good lawyers don't seek out the media ahead of a trial. They don't attempt to try their cases through the press. They instruct their clients to maintain silence as well. at the opposite end of the spectrum, look at how skilfully conrad black & attorney miguel estrada keep stringing the papparazzi along while telling them nothing more salubrious than that, yes indeed, his lordship did enjoy a glass of wine on the evening he regained the soon-to-be-history splendours of his mansion in palm beach.

07-28-2010, 01:21 PM	#5
investnoob Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 56	I think the article explains that none of the children have a lawyer. They are all representing themselves. I think Ken was singled out for the story simply because the journalist knew that it would make for a more interesting story.

08-19-2010, 07:53 AM	#7
Square Root Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 139	Although I stingily disagree with this support obligation, it is consistent with spousal support theory family law espouses. Idea seems to be that a person who has benefitted in someway by the sacrifice of another owes that person support later on to compensate them for the sacrifice. This is how spousal support is justified. Not that big of a leap to this case. Would make no difference if the parent was a "good" parent as it makes no difference if a spouse was a "good" spouse.

07-27-2010, 07:35 PM	#8
humble_pie Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 642	as for the whole question of enforced financial support between and among related adults, i believe that there may also be shadowy laws somewhere reciting that able grown children can sue their parents for permanent support because ... because ... i'm not sure why, maybe because they just don't feel like working. i for one am flummoxed by stuff like this. Fortunately it seems so rare as to be freak news. Perhaps that's because there's a profound unconscious taboo against the repulsive idea of living off your own flesh and blood by legal edict ... hmmmn are there any social historians among us. At some point quite recently in the evolution of western civ, people moved to care for their weak, ill & dying on a broad national and universal basis, rather than on an older & more primitive basis of tribal/kinship/family connection. and are we moving back now. a detail in the bc story. Some judge, as a temporary arrangement, has already ordered the 4 children to pay a token amount, something like $10 each, to their mother each month. I wonder if the trial judge might eventually hand down a permanent decision along such lines. Something that would oblige the children to pay a tolerable amount, while also obliging the mother to collect the best she can from social assistance available to her & to bloody well learn to live with the total. i think the precedent of any decision permanently awarding any sum of money from the children to their parent will be heavy. No wonder barrister mcleod seized the pro bono. It's his chance to make legal history. as MG says, some fizz for your retirement planning.