![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
My husband is the middle of five siblings. The three oldest were high achievers who earned advanced degrees and are now comfortably retired, living far from their hometown. The fourth, a brother, has struggled all his life. After four years in the Army, he drifted between unemployment and low-paying jobs, never able to support himself. His parents covered his expenses or let him live with them, even paying for his car while he worked as a pizza-delivery driver. He also developed substance-abuse problems.
After my husband’s father died, the brother stayed in the family home, supposedly caring for their mother but, in fact, exploiting her. He drained her accounts to feed his habit and neglected her care, and after her death he was convicted of elder abuse — something his out-of-town siblings hadn’t realized was happening. Before she died, their mother begged them not to let him be homeless.
Because the brother couldn’t maintain the house, the siblings sold it and split the proceeds. With his share, they bought him a mobile home and placed funds in a protected account, which covered rent and utilities for nearly 10 years until the money ran out. They eventually transferred the bills into his name and explained how to manage them.
He rarely communicates with the family, except when he’s in trouble. Once on his own, chaos followed. He claimed that his pizza-delivery job was enough to live on, but he missed rent, faced eviction and squandered money on predatory car loans and endless repairs. Last year, his siblings discovered that his car had been repossessed and his water had been shut off for six months. His trailer was collapsing from a leaking roof, and garbage was piled everywhere. Yet he had never asked for help. They stepped in, restored utilities, reclaimed his car, cleaned his trailer and signed him up for Social Security. But he quickly burned through a lump-sum back-pay benefit (he said his account was hacked, though he was more likely scammed). Soon after, he fell behind again, and his Social Security is now being garnished by the I.R.S.
The mobile-home park wants him out for unpaid rent and unsafe conditions. He’s clearly mentally ill, but perhaps not impaired enough for a sibling to secure guardianship. My husband and his siblings want to honor their mother’s plea to keep him housed, but contributing to his rent payments and repairing his trailer isn’t financially sustainable for them, and none of them want to take him in because he’s horrible to live with. Social services might help, but he resists cooperation and can’t manage on his own.
So they wonder: At what point do they stop trying? Are they obliged to sustain someone who refuses to sustain himself? Do they owe him the effort of seeking guardianship, or is that more than can reasonably be asked? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
People are entitled to manage their own lives — if they’re capable of doing so. But it can be hard to draw a line between “managing badly” and “not being able to manage at all.” This brother-in-law can work, at least sporadically, but he cannot handle money, sustain housing or ask for help when he needs it. Add addiction into the mix, and his ability to run his own life is gravely compromised.
That naturally raises the question of guardianship, putting someone else in charge of his life. But courts, rightly, have a high bar for establishing a guardianship (or conservatorship), and in any case, it wouldn’t be a solution to the problem so much as full ownership of the problem. To be someone’s guardian is like having a child in your care. A guardian typically must oversee a ward’s housing, medical care, finances, even emotional well-being, and report regularly to a court. It’s the sort of time-consuming, intrusive, emotionally draining commitment none of your in-laws should be expected to take on.
There are still things this man’s siblings can do. They can get together to pay his rent and keep him housed, help him apply for benefits, steer him toward treatment programs, set up connections with community resources. These don’t depend on him exercising sound judgment, and they could prevent the very worst outcomes. But they can’t guarantee stability, because he may refuse assistance or sabotage it.
That leads to the looming ethical question: How much is enough? Clearly, the family isn’t going to watch him self-destruct with indifference. But they don’t have to devote their lives to a guardianship-like role that the legal system recognizes as extraordinary and rescue him endlessly from the consequences of his choices. They have already gone further than many families would. Beyond steering him toward systems of care and making sure he isn’t simply abandoned, the siblings must recognize that the life he insists on leading — or cannot help leading — is his own. They can’t be obligated to accomplish the impossible; in the philosophical saw, “ought implies can.”
Link
After my husband’s father died, the brother stayed in the family home, supposedly caring for their mother but, in fact, exploiting her. He drained her accounts to feed his habit and neglected her care, and after her death he was convicted of elder abuse — something his out-of-town siblings hadn’t realized was happening. Before she died, their mother begged them not to let him be homeless.
Because the brother couldn’t maintain the house, the siblings sold it and split the proceeds. With his share, they bought him a mobile home and placed funds in a protected account, which covered rent and utilities for nearly 10 years until the money ran out. They eventually transferred the bills into his name and explained how to manage them.
He rarely communicates with the family, except when he’s in trouble. Once on his own, chaos followed. He claimed that his pizza-delivery job was enough to live on, but he missed rent, faced eviction and squandered money on predatory car loans and endless repairs. Last year, his siblings discovered that his car had been repossessed and his water had been shut off for six months. His trailer was collapsing from a leaking roof, and garbage was piled everywhere. Yet he had never asked for help. They stepped in, restored utilities, reclaimed his car, cleaned his trailer and signed him up for Social Security. But he quickly burned through a lump-sum back-pay benefit (he said his account was hacked, though he was more likely scammed). Soon after, he fell behind again, and his Social Security is now being garnished by the I.R.S.
The mobile-home park wants him out for unpaid rent and unsafe conditions. He’s clearly mentally ill, but perhaps not impaired enough for a sibling to secure guardianship. My husband and his siblings want to honor their mother’s plea to keep him housed, but contributing to his rent payments and repairing his trailer isn’t financially sustainable for them, and none of them want to take him in because he’s horrible to live with. Social services might help, but he resists cooperation and can’t manage on his own.
So they wonder: At what point do they stop trying? Are they obliged to sustain someone who refuses to sustain himself? Do they owe him the effort of seeking guardianship, or is that more than can reasonably be asked? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
People are entitled to manage their own lives — if they’re capable of doing so. But it can be hard to draw a line between “managing badly” and “not being able to manage at all.” This brother-in-law can work, at least sporadically, but he cannot handle money, sustain housing or ask for help when he needs it. Add addiction into the mix, and his ability to run his own life is gravely compromised.
That naturally raises the question of guardianship, putting someone else in charge of his life. But courts, rightly, have a high bar for establishing a guardianship (or conservatorship), and in any case, it wouldn’t be a solution to the problem so much as full ownership of the problem. To be someone’s guardian is like having a child in your care. A guardian typically must oversee a ward’s housing, medical care, finances, even emotional well-being, and report regularly to a court. It’s the sort of time-consuming, intrusive, emotionally draining commitment none of your in-laws should be expected to take on.
There are still things this man’s siblings can do. They can get together to pay his rent and keep him housed, help him apply for benefits, steer him toward treatment programs, set up connections with community resources. These don’t depend on him exercising sound judgment, and they could prevent the very worst outcomes. But they can’t guarantee stability, because he may refuse assistance or sabotage it.
That leads to the looming ethical question: How much is enough? Clearly, the family isn’t going to watch him self-destruct with indifference. But they don’t have to devote their lives to a guardianship-like role that the legal system recognizes as extraordinary and rescue him endlessly from the consequences of his choices. They have already gone further than many families would. Beyond steering him toward systems of care and making sure he isn’t simply abandoned, the siblings must recognize that the life he insists on leading — or cannot help leading — is his own. They can’t be obligated to accomplish the impossible; in the philosophical saw, “ought implies can.”
Link
no subject
2. Without getting into the issue of whether or not this man's siblings should help him, I have to wonder about the claim that they can't. Four high achieving adults, and between them all they can't scrape up enough to cover rent in a trailer park? I mean, if that's the case, okay, but....
no subject
and even if it's impossible for one sibling to cover costs, surely between them they might be able to pull together enough to cover rent & utilities. have the bills come to someone else to pay would keep him housed, at least.
no subject
no subject
I concluded that the brother being supported is the husband's fourth sibling, that is, the youngest of the five children. ?
What I want to know is, how long was he scamming the fam about taking care of Mom and how did none of the sibs catch on? Ever? 🤨
no subject
I can absolutely imagine a retirement income that I'd consider comfortable in that it met all my needs and left a cushion for emergencies, but that doesn't mean giving up the cushion would be financially sustainable.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I also wonder why 4 of them can't jointly afford to contribute to his rent and trailer repairs, but there may be too much back rent owed; Brother may have a lot of legal bills owing (he was convicted of elder abuse and his Social Security's being garnished); and that trailer may need replaced, not just repaired.
no subject
Psych colleges have free counseling available and I guarantee the students know how to handle substance abuse clients. (One of my siblings just finished school to be a therapist.)
This is a bitch of a situation.
Folks in my family have struggled with substance problems. There is a point where you have to stop helping if they won't stop using. But it's a bitch of a situation.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Yeah, exactly. And the mum having begged them to not leave him homeless complicates that calculus even more, I suspect. I'm kind of surprised LW didn't mention any siblings being like "fuck this guy", honestly, or at least "I can't bring myself to keep rescuing the guy who abused Mom".
no subject
I think the Ethicist's advice to continue to help in other ways (if the help is wanted and they are able) and to keep directing him to community resources/treatment is pretty sound, although the availability of the latter have become more fraught, at least in the U.S.
no subject