Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)In the cases I handled it was mostly neglect not abuse
And I had to tell my clients, if they were grandparents, to say they could NOT take the grandchildren UNLESS they get Foster care money, CYS has a duty to put children with the nearest available relative, generally the Grandparents. On the other hand if the Grandparents take the Children WITHOUT being first authorize Foster Care Money, all the Grandparents can apply for is Public Welfare for the Children.
The reason for this is simple, Foster Care provides more money to the Grandparents then Public Welfare, and thus costs the State more money. Yes it is money driven. Thus CYS will make the threat to put the Children elsewhere and try to force the Grandparents to take the children WITHOUT Foster care assistance. It is only if the Grandparents stand FIRM that CYS finally authorize foster care money.
As to support of your parents, that was the requirement under the Common Law and thus technically the law in EVERY State of the union (It is also among the Ten Commandments as part of "Honoring" your parents). On the other hand, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) has taken over most of those duties. Long term nursing care has taken over the need for Adult children to be in the same home as their parent in their advance age. All together the modern welfare state has replace the need for Children to Take care of their Parents, but the States have NOT repealed the the law that Children must support their parents.
In those states that have Statutes that replaced the Common Law Rule, the chief reason for the lack of repeal is what would be the result of the repeal? Would it reinstate the Common Law Rule? Or stop any such requirement? The general rule is that any law, in derogation of the Common Law, when it is repealed, reinstates that Common Law (Thus the Law from the 1880s outlawing Washer Women in the US Army is still on the books, for under the Common Law every group of 20 men in the Army was entitled to one washer woman, if the law outlawing washer women is repealed, that would reinstate the Common Law Rule and the US Army does NOT want to pay for Washer Women).
In those states that NEVER repealed the Common Law Rule, how do you repeal something that no one had enforced in 60-80 years? In fact many Judges think is no longer the law just because no one has asked for it to be enforced in decades (or worse, do not even think it as the law, for no one has ever file to enforce such a claim).
Thus this requirement stays on the book, more from neglect than anything else. They would only come into play if Social Security is ever abolished and Senior Citizens get to be to costly for the State to keep, so the State sues the Children under these laws (Or the cost of long term care gets to high AND the Federal Government stops paying for it). As long as the Federal Government is willing to pay for long term care, the States prefer the Federal Money, with all its restrictions, to the almost impossible ability to get money from the adult children of people in long term care.