Who should pay for one family member to act as caregiver to parents?

[Midpack]

Just thanking you all again. I felt better when I went to sleep last night, and I am carefully re-reading it all this AM. Sister is uneasy now, she wants to help but she realizes it could turn out badly. She does want us to get on the same page. Her offer to move/help parents is primary and sincere, but she also confessed that she'd like to retire, but can't afford to yet, and if parents pay she can 'retire' 4 years early. Yes, I realize this may raise some red flags to this audience...

 

[2B]

IOW, not sure how I'd even get them to try communal setting, they're determined to stay at home until they pass no matter what it takes.

It will take the "train wreck" I brought up earlier and even then it won't be pretty.

Your DS needs to understand all of these details. She won't be "retiring." She will be embarking on an indefinite career as a home heath care worker with no respite or relief. They are unlikely to pass away quietly in their sleep. One or both will likely develop severe dimentia, need diapers and/or develop severe physical limitations in the "life skills."

The fact that your parents can't get up when they fall tells me that they are ready for assisted living. Normal people don't fall very often; and when they do, they get up by themselves.

When their licenses can't be renewed, they will become prisoners in their own home but they will still fight every effort to move them. Your situation will not end well.

 

[Midpack]

It sounds like your parents have enough money to pay for an unrelated caretaker. So I see no reason for you to have to chip in just because they select your sister as their caretaker. They should pay her, which will reduce their estate and the amount you inherit. It seems to be an acceptable outcome for you.

It is an acceptable outcome indeed. However sister is relying in part on inheritance, and has told me same. So while she agrees I should not be asked to pay, a secondary motivation for her to move and help care for parents would be to reduce their out-of-pocket costs to preserve their $ estate (her inheritance).

 

[FIREd]

It is an acceptable outcome indeed. However sister is relying in part on inheritance, and has told me same. So while she agrees I should not be asked to pay, a secondary motivation for her to move and help care for parents would be to reduce their out-of-pocket costs to preserve their $ estate (her inheritance).

Her objection should be easily overcome. First, if you hire an independent caretaker, the inheritance is reduced anyways. By taking the job, she gets to "retire" 4 years earlier and ends up with a larger payout (half the final estate plus the salary earned as a caretaker). It seems to work in her favor - if she does not mind doing the job of caring for your parents.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

It is an acceptable outcome indeed. However sister is relying in part on inheritance, and has told me same. So while she agrees I should not be asked to pay, a secondary motivation for her to move and help care for parents would be to reduce their out-of-pocket costs to preserve their $ estate (her inheritance).

That may not work out if one or both end up in a nursing home at $80K a year per person and have to spend down to Medicaid.

 

[braumeister]

And that's a key consideration: people living much longer than expected.

Taking care of my mother until her death at 96 was hard enough, but one of my best friends did the same until his mother died at 103. Nobody ever expected either situation, but it can happen.

 

[Midpack]

Sister just shared some $ amounts that will add some perspective to the financial situation (and will undoubtedly surprise some). Parents have Medicare, TriCare and VA healthcare coverage. Combined pensions/SS total $130K/yr. No debts and their annual expenses are $24K/yr, they have been saving the rest. [I thought I was LBYM!!!] [update] In 2011 they had $960K in CD's, $300K house and $120K collectibles, jewelry, other property, no telling what the accumulated total is today. They haven't had any investments more risky than CD's for about 10 years, so no losses possible.

It'll be a miracle if we're that we'll set at their age, highly unlikely I'd expect...

 

[2B]

Sister just shared some $ amounts that will add some perspective to the financial situation (and will undoubtedly surprise some). Parents have Medicare, TriCare and VA healthcare coverage. Combined pensions/SS total $130K/yr. No debts and their annual expenses are $24K/yr, they have been saving the rest. [I thought I was LBYM!!!] In 2005 they had $750K in CD's, $300K house and $120K collectibles, jewelry, other property, no telling what the accumulated total is today. They haven't had any investments more risky than CD's for about 10 years, so no losses possible.

It'll be a miracle if we're that we'll set at their age, highly unlikely I'd expect...

Theoretically, they should be investing for their heirs. They could just about fund nursing care for both of them indefinitely out of cash flow. All CDs is so very wrong.

 

[MichaelB]

Shouldn't they be investing to fund their short and long term care needs? Heirs and inheritances are secondary IMHO.

One additional thought about assisted living and nursing homes. I've discussed this at length with health care professionals including geriatric psychiatrists and neurologists, their view is many people might be better off at home with some home care assistance rather than in a facility. As long as they can carry out the ADLs, the default options should be home unless the subjects themselves express a different preference or there is a clear medical need.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

All CDs is so very wrong.

Yet, they seem to be doing very well financially with the CD route.

 

[2B]

Yet, they seem to be doing very well financially with the CD route.

They are only doing well because they don't need any of the money now or likely to in the future. They are adding close to $100,000 per year to their assets. They aren't investing or saving for themselves. Their return on the assets are certainly not doing too well in this interest rate environment. A more balanced portfolio seems to be a better choice.

 

[Midpack]

They are only doing well because they don't need any of the money now or likely to in the future. They are adding close to $100,000 per year to their assets. They aren't investing or saving for themselves. Their return on the assets are certainly not doing too well in this interest rate environment. A more balanced portfolio seems to be a better choice.

Maybe. But if you were 92, very conservative by nature, witnessed the 2008 GFC/ meltdown (from the sidelines), and you wanted to leave your daughter a substantial $ inheritance - no equity holdings might be a permissible choice. "Once you've won the game, why keep playing?"

 

[Hermit]

They are only doing well because they don't need any of the money now or likely to in the future. They are adding close to $100,000 per year to their assets. They aren't investing or saving for themselves. Their return on the assets are certainly not doing too well in this interest rate environment. A more balanced portfolio seems to be a better choice.

Coming of age during the depression had a major impact on those people. My dad was of the same mind and in the same situation although the numbers were quite a bit smaller. He and my mom died within one year of each other and their investments were all in CDs. I don't think at the age of 90+ is a good time to try to change someone's investing habits. Especially someone who wants his son to pay for living assistance expenses. Even bringing the subject up could close communication doors.

 

[Silver]

They are only doing well because they don't need any of the money now or likely to in the future. They are adding close to $100,000 per year to their assets. They aren't investing or saving for themselves. Their return on the assets are certainly not doing too well in this interest rate environment. A more balanced portfolio seems to be a better choice.

In my VERY humble position, I wouldn't be worried about their portfolio at this point in time. I would want to honor their desire to die with dignity, in their own home, controlling what they still can, and knowing that at the very least, their children get that.

It is not about the money at this point, regardless of what the DF says. It is about being able to die in a way that is preceived to be acceptable to them as a couple. That's all.

We will all die. We will also all be where they are one day.

 

[2B]

Maybe. But if you were 92, very conservative by nature, witnessed the 2008 GFC/ meltdown (from the sidelines), and you wanted to leave your daughter a substantial $ inheritance - no equity holdings might be a permissible choice. "Once you've won the game, why keep playing?"

My comment wasn't really relevant to your initial post. It was more of a reflection. It isn't something that should be brought up with them.

When I took over my in-laws assets, I treated DWs share of the eventual inheritance like it was already ours and invested accordingly. I took over after both were determined to be incompetent to manage their own affairs. DW had the POAs. We had a copy of the will and knew what all the bills were likely to be during their lifetimes.

 

[robnplunder]

In my VERY humble position, I wouldn't be worried about their portfolio at this point in time. I would want to honor their desire to die with dignity, in their own home, controlling what they still can, and knowing that at the very least, their children get that.

It is not about the money at this point, regardless of what the DF says. It is about being able to die in a way that is preceived to be acceptable to them as a couple. That's all.

We will all die. We will also all be where they are one day.

My point exactly in my 1st response to the OP. There's more than financial transaction here, especially, if parent-children relationship were a good one (I don't know the Op's relationship with his parents).

And if you want to talk financials, both Midpack and sister have so much $$$ to gain when their parents pass on. Seems like what the parents are asking appear to be fair trade given the would be inheritance amount. I am just saying.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Maybe. But if you were 92, very conservative by nature, witnessed the 2008 GFC/ meltdown (from the sidelines), and you wanted to leave your daughter a substantial $ inheritance - no equity holdings might be a permissible choice. "Once you've won the game, why keep playing?"

+1. If expenses are less than SS and pensions, why keep playing the game with the portfolio? That is what we plan to do. The kids won't be poor either way between their careers (college and probably grad school paid 100% by us in STEM fields), and inheriting the current house and portfolio as long as we invest for at least for a zero real return.

 

[2B]

In my VERY humble position, I wouldn't be worried about their portfolio at this point in time. I would want to honor their desire to die with dignity, in their own home, controlling what they still can, and knowing that at the very least, their children get that.

It is not about the money at this point, regardless of what the DF says. It is about being able to die in a way that is preceived to be acceptable to them as a couple. That's all.

We will all die. We will also all be where they are one day.

I agree the investment strategy isn't an issue to deal with now or probably in their remaining lifetime (unless POA is executed).

I have seen multiple elderly people (including my FIL/MIL) refuse to consider anything other than staying in their home and pretending to live like they always have. This is true well past the time when any rational person says they can't manage to do this without continuous care. My in-laws were such PITAs that I have told my children that this is to be expected when I get old. When I need to be somewhere else, don't put yourself through all sorts of anguish. Do what has to be done. Do what's best for me and not what I say I want.

We all what to live life on our own terms. Frequently, we can't.

I'm glad you are looking forward to possibly a decade of dealing with your elderly parents while you change their diapers, chase after them when they wander down the street disoriented, throw their food, have to be spoon fed every meal. I'm not and now prefer (with still a reasonable control of my faculties) that my children not do that even if I object at the time.

 

[Silver]

I'm glad you are looking forward to possibly a decade of dealing with your elderly parents while you change their diapers, chase after them when they wander down the street disoriented, throw their food, have to be spoon fed every meal. I'm not and now prefer (with still a reasonable control of my faculties) that my children not do that even if I object at the time.

I already lived that decade when I took my father (who had severe dementia) into my home for the final 5 years of his life. It was not at all what you describe, but it was hard. I'm glad I was able to do what I could for him, and would do it again.

 

[robnplunder]

I already lived that decade when I took my father (who had severe dementia) into my home for the final 5 years of his life. It was not at all what you describe, but it was hard. I'm glad I was able to do what I could for him, and would do it again.

I took care of my dying brother every other weekend for almost a year. I don't think I can do it again. It took a huge toll on me, mentally & physically, and took many months to recover from the ordeal.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

They are only doing well because they don't need any of the money now or likely to in the future. They are adding close to $100,000 per year to their assets. They aren't investing or saving for themselves. Their return on the assets are certainly not doing too well in this interest rate environment. A more balanced portfolio seems to be a better choice.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. They are saving money because of low expenses. If they are happy saving that way and don't want to risk losing money in the stock market, why not? Why would a more balanced portfolio be a better choice in their particular situation? Losing half their money might make them feel worse than doubling it might make them happier, per the law of diminishing marginal utility. If they lost $300K in the stock market, to them that would be losing 12 years of living expenses in one year, instead of saving 4 years of living expenses every year with the status quo.

 

[Sunset]

Your parents have over 1MM plus a big pension.
They need in home assistance, they need to hire someone to come in daily to help out, attend to things, etc.
Possibly they do need night time supervision, but start with the day only as a much easier step.

This will cost about $30K to 60K per year, but their pension can easily cover it.
Your DS does not have to quit her job (DS is not prepared to be a care-giver) and its quite likely you both will still be splitting a 1 MM inheritance.

Make sure both of you get on as co-signer to parents accounts, and review accounts (online?) every couple of months.

You don't want a care-giver to steal it all, and you will probably go through 1 or 2 care-givers per year as its a tough job. (which is why DS cannot do it).

 

[Midpack]

Your parents have over 1MM plus a big pension.
They need in home assistance, they need to hire someone to come in daily to help out, attend to things, etc.
Possibly they do need night time supervision, but start with the day only as a much easier step.

This will cost about $30K to 60K per year, but their pension can easily cover it.
Your DS does not have to quit her job (DS is not prepared to be a care-giver) and its quite likely you both will still be splitting a 1 MM inheritance.

Make sure both of you get on as co-signer to parents accounts, and review accounts (online?) every couple of months.

You don't want a care-giver to steal it all, and you will probably go through 1 or 2 care-givers per year as its a tough job. (which is why DS cannot do it).

I realize they're 'wanting their cake and to eat it too,' but they can't stand the idea of having strangers in their house, or sister and I when we're not needed frankly (hence they want her to move nearby, but have her own apartment even though they have two spare bedrooms). They hired people to handle the pool and yard, and they have a paid handyman they've known for years who helps out as needed.

Inside the house is a different matter, it's their "nest." They have a maid once/week, but Mom has never gotten comfortable with the idea, she absolutely hates it. How we would get them to accept more help than a maid is beyond sister and I. I am afraid it's going to take a serious injury for either of them to even consider it, and I suspect they will still do everything they can to avoid "outsider" help.

Sister is willing to be their outside help, but she realizes as the months/years pass there may well be things she can't do for them.

They simply won't talk about independent living/assisted living/nursing care. They'd literally get up and walk away if we tried to force that conversation.

I know the advice we've gotten here is correct, but not how to get from point A to point B without a catastrophe in the meantime. They're determined to die peacefully in their sleep, without anyone's help, except sister.

Thanks again. Sister and I have been comparing notes for years, and we've exchanged thoughts extensively in the past two days. And we've both gently confronted Dad last night. We'll see where it leads.

 

[pb4uski]

It is an acceptable outcome indeed. However sister is relying in part on inheritance, and has told me same. So while she agrees I should not be asked to pay, a secondary motivation for her to move and help care for parents would be to reduce their out-of-pocket costs to preserve their $ estate (her inheritance).

I think DS is not looking at the whole picture. To me it is neutral financially. If DS quits and moves in with parents, she'll receive pay and a smaller inheritance (smaller by the amount of her pay). If she keeps working in the job she has, she'll receive pay from her employer and a smaller inheritance (by the amount paid to the home care provider). So how different it is depends on how here earnings compare to what is paid for the home care provider.

I actually chuckle now that your Dad was insisting that you ante up for some of the costs after hearing that they are banking so much of their pension/SS income. Unless perhaps he is thinking that any estate would be split 50/50 so you should "reimburse" DS for half of her 'lost" earnings from not working.

FWIW, I don't at all like the DS quitting and taking care of parents idea. Unless DS' job was in geriatrics, it is likely that she is ill equipped to do the home care job, especially if your parent's health fails more. My DS is an LNA and worked in a nursing home and it is physically demanding moving the dead weight of patients and in the nursing home they can enlist other caregivers to help when needed and have equipment to help make the job easier. This could be very challenging to your DS at her age if they decline more. They need to think not of just what is needed today and tomorrow, but what will be needed in 1, 2 or 3 years (God willing). Perhaps you can spin it to your Mom and Dad that while it is an interesting idea, that is isn't fair to DS to have her do that even if she is willing and eager to.

Perhaps a better idea is to see if DD and DM will accept outside help "temporarily" and be very careful in selecting someone good, monitor the situation and cross your fingers that it works out. If it works out then that is a great outcome. If it does not, the you all can always reconsider the DS quitting idea. But if DS quits and moves and it doesn't work out, then there is probably no returning.

+1 with ideas that you should have access to their financial accounts so you can monitor their finances. Also, if not already done or I missed it, you and DS should be beneficiaries on all financial accounts.

 

[braumeister]

They simply won't talk about independent living/assisted living/nursing care. They'd literally get up and walk away if we tried to force that conversation.

I perfectly understand this; I went through exactly the same thing with my mother. It is definitely the biggest hurdle.

What worked for us is that my mom knew several people in the same age group who had moved to retirement communities, some with assisted living options.
I took her to visit a couple of them, and I could see her beginning to soften her attitude a bit.

Then I made my own list of what I considered nice places, and asked her to visit them with me so she could get an idea what was available "if the time ever came that she needed it."

These places are very good at giving prospective customers a tour, and the process worked. There was quite a bit of reluctance at first, but after less than a week she was hooked and it was "Why didn't I do this years ago?"

Others have posted similar stories here, so I know mine is hardly unique.

Just another idea for you. Good luck.