Two siblings are faced with the realization that their 96 year old Dad and 93 year old Mom, both with Dementia, but otherwise healthy, are at the point 24/7 care is needed for their parents. In an effort to prevent either/both parent from entering the nursing home, one sibling has left their home across the country to permanently reside with the parents and become their primary care giver. Aside from a home health nurse who comes periodically as well as a nurse’s aide to assistant with bathing and other necessary requirements, the one sibling is in the home 24/7. The other sibling has suggested the family hire a sitter to help alleviate some of the burden on the live-in sibling. However, the care giver sibling does not want to pay an outsider when they are already there full time. If they want to pay someone, the estate can pay the care giver sibling instead. This is not well received with the family as they feel it is a moral obligation to care for their parents and should not be compensated as such. What is the norm in this situation? I understand compensation if the parent moves into the child’s home, but this child has moved into their parent’s home.
How very convenient for the siblings! Even if each sibling were doing an exactly equal share it would still be allowed for one sibling to decline to participate but WOW. To decide it’s someone else’s MORAL OBLIGATION to do something that you’re not even participating in takes big brass ones. Wow.
A family member was taking the moral high ground & said "Family must help family".
I started my challenges;
"You are family. What about YOU?" Mumble mumble, not me.. I'm a man.
Does family need to help or CHOOSE to help?
Does family help have NO limits?
No limit to time? Money?
Does family help even though it may cause HARM to themself? To other people? Their job, study, financial security, health?
Caregiving works when it WORKS for BOTH the care-giver & the care-receiver.
Being related by blood is not a right to obtain a care-servant.
Furthermore, this should not wait until both parents are dead with the plan for the "estate" to financially compensate this sib after the fact, because with 2 parents with dementia there might very well be nothing left of the estate to pay back caregiving sibling!
If the rest of the family feels caring for these 2 people in their home by family members free of charge is a "moral obligation", let them put their money where their mouths are and join that caregiving sibling at parents' home to help in the free caregiving. I don't see THAT suggestion anywhere in your post.
No one has an obligation to caregive their parents. Also, there is no estate until these parents are dead. If compensation is made, it will come out of parents' savings or income, is that right?
Home caregiving is a difficult job, and if caregiver can be paid, they should be. If this "child" isn't paid, the "child" should leave and let the rest of the family manage and care for the parents. Who, by the way, need a lot more than a sitter. Full-time care of two dementia parents will require a24/7 caregiver, relief caregivers for the main caregiver, and a host of other people to manage, clean, shop, drive them, make appointments, and so on.
All of you have a lot to learn. Good luck, and please let us know how you're doing.
If the 'obligation' is the commandment, remember that 'honor thy father and thy mother' had nothing to do with providing hands-on care. More like 'don't run them down in public'.
If someone gave up their life to prop up their demented parents so said parents didn't need to go to a facility, this does not mean that this person is getting free rent and should be obligated to give 24/7/365 free care in exchange.
To say they are both suffering from dementia, need 24/7 care, yet otherwise are healthy is such an oxymoron. Obviously spoken by someone that doesn't know dementia from a hole in the ground.
The caregiver should be paid the going rate for a live in caregiver and room and board on top of any payment.
So, who are you? The care slave or the moral obligation sibling/family?
A Formal contract with attorney to ensure the proper avenues are crossed and dotted.
In addition to the compensation the contract should state the max hours, time off vacation days and duties that will be done.
The sibling should also NOT be 24/7 and additional caregiving sources should be used.
"Moral Obligation" is a tactic to guilt and strong arm someone into an absurd amount of work for one person. Shame on anyone that tries that tactic.
I feel for your sibling that has left her home and family to care for the parents. No one should make this decision.
I also think the sibling is short sighted in thinking that there should be no outside help. Does anyone working a job work 24/7/365? A schedule like that is impossible and WILL, not can or might, lead to burnout.
I think if the siblings that do not want to pay the sibling that has given up their home, their family, their life then each sibling should take a 3 or 4 months turn at caregiving. Each in turn gives up their lives, family, home and stay 24/7 as an UNPAID caregiver for mom and dad.
I don't think this is a "moral obligation" in caring for parents I think this is an effort to preserve any inheritance that might come.
And as to the inheritance I think if this is the way things are going to be the one sibling that has given up everything should get HALF of the inheritance and the other half is split between all siblings. I know that is not how things will go though.
Why receive the family's criticism and try to save money so they can inherit, when just the fact that you are the caregiver often costs you extra money? (gas, food out, a little outing, lost wages, no SS retirement built up.)
What I have seen work was the siblings contributed their fair share to the person caregiving or to the cost of a facility. A sliding scale if one could not afford it.
The family is not respectful of what the caregiver is sacrificing to care for the parents.
See All Answers