How to go about getting an elderly person to agree to pay you as their caregiver?

Follow
Share

I have been helping my longtime boyfriend take care of his grandmother, who has dementia, for almost 3 years now. I have never been able to get payed for all the work I do; which range from managing her daily medications to household chores. Neither me or my boyfriend can get her to agree to pay us as her caregivers. We've tried the local IHSS office where we live but were told she doesnt qualify. Please help with any of your answers/suggestions. Have in mind that this woman has the finances to pay me or any other person for that matter to be heling her. She simply refuses to. I've heard something about suing a person for loss wages, how does one go about doing so. I would appreciate any help I can get because im tired of feeling used and taken advantage of by this woman. And am too nice of a person to just stop helping her.

This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
20

Answers

Show:
Oh, I get it now. This one of the times where being 'nice' is 'not nice'.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

This was an egregious case of worker abuse, where someone providing care was treated with an utter lack of care for her rights and for her humanity," said Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su. "I am pleased that through the Berman wage claim process, my office was able to help her get some of the hard earned wages she deserved. This is a sign that when workers come forward to file wage claims, they can win some measure of justice."
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

prnewswire/news-releases/labor-commissioner-awards-138386-to-caretaker-who-worked-round-the-clock-for-less-than-minimum-wage-300100191.html

SAN FRANCISCO, June 16, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- California Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su awarded $138,386 in back pay to a caregiver who worked 16-hour days in San Francisco for less than minimum wage, usually without a day off. The amount includes minimum wage and severance pay violations, liquidated damages and waiting time penalties.

Francisca Vasquez, a Salvadoran war refugee, was hired in 1992 by siblings Magdalena Lindvall and Reynaldo Peña Jr. to work as a companion for their elderly parents for $400 a month. Eventually Vasquez became a housekeeper and then round-the-clock caregiver to their mother for $500 a month. Upon the mother's death, Vasquez was discharged.

"Workers are not always aware of their rights," said Christine Baker, Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). "California labor law protects domestic workers as well as others who work in industries susceptible to wage theft." The Labor Commissioner's Office, also known as the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), is a division within DIR.

Because Vasquez filed her claim two years into the three year statute of limitation for minimum wage claims, she could only collect wages on the last year she worked.

"This was an egregious case of worker abuse, where someone providing care was treated with an utter lack of care for her rights and for her humanity," said Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su. "I am pleased that through the Berman wage claim process, my office was able to help her get some of the hard earned wages she deserved. This is a sign that when workers come forward to file wage claims, they can win some measure of justice."

The Labor Commissioner awarded her $50,008 for wages, $48,209 in liquidated damages, $35,707 in interest, and $4,464 in penalties.

Vasquez was assisted in the wage claim process by the community organization Mujeres Unidas y Activas and the Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center.

The Labor Commissioner's Office inspects workplaces for wage and hour violations, adjudicates wage claims, enforces prevailing wage rates and apprenticeship standards in public works projects, investigates retaliation and whistleblower complaints, issues licenses and registrations for businesses, and educates the public on labor laws. Updated information on California labor laws is available online.

The Wage Theft is a Crime public awareness campaign, launched last year by DIR and its Labor Commissioner's Office, has helped inform workers of their rights. The campaign includes multilingual print and outdoor advertising as well as radio commercials on ethnic stations in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Hmong and Tagalog.

Employees with work-related questions or complaints may call the toll-free California Workers' Information Line at (866) 924-9757 for recorded information in Spanish and English on a variety of work-related topics.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

I agree on both points, txcamper. But the principles raised by the OP's situation are important to lots of people and maybe some people here. I don't want people to be misled into thinking that caregivers can expect payment even if no payment was promised, on some kid of "implied contract" theory. It doesn't serve anyone to go around with wrong information in their heads.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

This post is over a year old. It would be nice if the original poster came back and told us how it all worked out. However, it doesn't do much good to continue to give her advice.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

I think if the care recipient agreed to pay a fixed amount, say $200 per week, for the OP to care for her and has not paid it and has continued to accept the help, it is probably enforceable in court. But if there was a vague promise without a specified amount and nothing in writing it will be difficult to prove. If the person has said all along that they wouldn't pay cash as well as room and board, or only promised room and board, I think there's no way to claim now that cash should be paid (even if you're not living there).

I think the case of the housepainter was just that, a professional house painter. If I recall the case correctly, he painted the wrong house by mistake but the homeowner never informed him of the mistake but simply accepted the paint job. That's a different situation - as most people provide care for family members for free and in many cases, that includes family members or your spouse or romantic partner. The recipient could be thinking that the OP is helping her boyfriend with the caregiving tasks because she wants to help him out or because she considers the grandmother to be her own family member, too. The California case is also not applicable because in that case, the caregiver was paid to be a companion but he was paid less than minimum wage and he sued for the difference. I probably don't need to say that San Francisco is a very employee-friendly jurisdiction - they were the first to require domestic partner benefits, for example.

Even if the OP was willing to sue her boyfriend's grandmother, I think her legal case is very, very iffy. I agree with those who think the OP should leave the caregiving to the family members and get herself an actual paying job.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

www.dir.ca.gov
News Release No.: 2015, Date: June 16, 2015
Labor Commissioner Awards $138,386 to Caretaker Who Worked Round the Clockfor Less Than Minimum Wage.San Francisco
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

In the decision of Folia v Trelinski, 1996 New Westminster Supreme Court Registry No. 19961104, a promise to care for a parent for life was found to be enforceable. It was held not to be uncertain


Unjust enrichment

Five elements must be proved to make a case of unjust enrichment: (1) an enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; (4) absence of justification for the enrichment and the
impoverishment and (5) an absence of a remedy provided by law.


Care giving responsibilities are challenging and time-consuming. It is important to understand
that careg iving can also have serious financial consequences. Women continue to be the primary
caregivers and are therefore at even greater risk of experiencing financial set-backs.
Some of the financial consequences of caregiving are obvious. Women often will decide to work
part-time, stop working, decline a promotion requiring longer hours or pass up a job or training
opportunity requiring travel. Women making these compromises at work often forfeit pay and benefits, miss out on opportunities for compounded returns on 401(k) matching contributions,and experience reduced savings and investments. There are also more subtle consequences.
They may even experience an inability to pay for home improvements that could increase the resale value of a residence, or to pursue additional education and degrees that could increase their earning power.
It is also important to remember that becoming a
caregiver can happen at any time, but often it may
happen as you are nearing retirement. Even older
adults who feel financially prepared for their own
retirement may suddenly find themselves
unprepared to manage the costs of
care giving.
If you are a caregiver, or expect you may
be one some day, it is important that you
take the necessary steps to avoid
compromising your own future financial
security.

A 2011 study showed that caregivers lost $303,880 in wages, Social Security benefits, and private pensions as a result of care giving responsibilities So is there a human cost to estate planning; yes there is…. It can be minimized if there is harmony in the family and the choices of individuals to serve roles (e.g. executor, trustee) are good choices. But if there is not, or there is a bad actor influencing the situation, the cost can indeed be a high one am constantly amazed at the greed shown by family members towards each other. Although I have been in practicing thirty years now with substantial experience in trust, probate and estate litigation, I have seen no change in the willingness of one or more family members to short-change another family member.

You would like to think in life that we will be rewarded for a job well done,sacrifices made to allow a loved one remain in her own home surrounded by family until the last 4 months of her life will be appreciated and respected. her expressed desire and goal being to preserve the trust thus make my sacrifice not without a future reward and a secure future, not to face a fiscal cliff and reality of years of Soc security contributions made.

The employment status of the caregiver can have a drastic effect on the entire family unit. A working caregiver can "incur significant losses in career development, salary and retirement income, and substantial out-of-pocket expenses as a result of their care giving obligations."'

The average loss of wealth experienced by caregivers is estimated to be "substantial, averaging $659,139 over the lifetime."'

In 1997 it was found that the stress of caring for an aging friend or relative resulted in one-tenth of the caregivers giving up work permanently.

The caregiver needs to show by “clear and convincing evidence,” a higher than normal standard, “that the transfer was not the product of fraud, duress, or undue influence.”

If the caregiver can show that the gift's size is no greater than it would have been before he or she became the caregiver, then he or she can overcome the presumptions.

The employment status of the caregiver can have a drastic effect on the entire family unit. A working caregiver can "incur significant losses in career development, salary and retirement income, and substantial out-of-pocket expenses as a result of their caregiving obligations."'

The average loss of wealth experienced by caregivers is estimated to be "substantial, averaging $659,139 over the lifetime."'

In 1997 it was found that the stress of caring for an aging friend or relative resulted in one-tenth of the caregivers giving up work permanently. under the "mutuality of benefits" policy, a child who has always lived with his or her parents will have a harder time proving that the services were not rendered gratuitously than a child who has lived separately from the parent and returned home to render care.


Look to contract theory in determining whether a
family member will be compensated for providing services to an elder relative in need. Generally, a contract to will property in exchange for services is valid and enforceable."
' The Uniform Probate Code provides:

"[a] contract to make a will or devise. can be established
only by,
(1) provisions of a will stating material provisions of the
contract;
(2) an express reference in a will to a contract and extrinsic
evidence proving the terms of the contract; or
(3) a writing signed by the decedent evidencing the contract."'
2 The Georgia Supreme Court also recognized that contracts to will property have been upheld in America from the earliest times and the validity of these contracts seem to be beyond all doubt." 3 However, this general rule does not hold true in all situations.
Contracts to will property in exchange for services are also valid and enforceable when they concern family members,"
4 but there is an additional hurdle to overcome when dealing with such situations.

The presumption may be rebutted by sufficient evidence of a contract, express or implied, to negate any presumption that the services were performed gratuitously.

Estate of Jesmer v. Rohlev, 241 Ill. App. 3d 798, 803, 609 N.E.2d 816, 820 (1993).
The amount of evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of gratuity depends on the facts of each case;
the presumption diminishes in direct proportion to the remoteness of the degree and character of the family relationship and the character of the duties performed

If the caregiver can show that the gift's size is no greater than it would have been before he or she became the caregiver, then he or she can overcome the presumption.


"Statutory Custodial Claim"

Effective January 1, 1989, a new Section 18-1.1 was added to the Probate Act.
The "Statutory Custodial Claim" was enacted to remedy the injustice of family members who rendered services and then were unable to prove the agreement with the Decedent or the value of the services.

One of a list of enumerated family members who dedicates himself or herself to the care of a disabled person by living with and personally caring for the disabled person for at least three years is entitled to a claim against the Estate upon the death of the disabled person.

The decision on the claim shall take into consideration the Claimant's lost employment opportunities, lost lifestyle opportunities, and emotional distress experienced as a result of personally caring for the disabled person.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Wait a minute. Your latest post says you don't live there.

Does your boyfriend live with her? What the heck is going on? Why are you doing this? In my opinion, you are being used. I'm not sure if it's by your boyfriend's gram, your boyfriend, or your obvious propensity to volunteer. Since SHE has dementia, I'll leave that call to you.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

There was no "implied contract" to pay her a dime. When she didn't get paid the first month, second month, third month, 36th month, she was gifting her services or happy with the room-and-board trade-off. No judge would see it any other way.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
Related
Questions