bearing blog

_{(This post is part of the series on postsecondary education.)}

+ + +

 

I've been blogging about how, legally speaking, parents' compulsory obligation to support their children ends at age 18, but how there's at least some evidence of a social expectation that parents will continue providing material support at least for a while.

For the sake of completeness and symmetry, I ought to point out that some states have on the books a "filial responsibility law" which compels adult children to provide material support to indigent parents.

There's a little bit about this here 

Filial responsibility laws typically don't apply unless your parent has to accept financial support from the government or she incurs a nursing home or other medical bill that she has no possibility of paying. If she has no financial resources, you might be expected to pay for her care. The nursing home, hospital, government or a third party can file a lawsuit against you in states that allow it, seeking a judgment that would obligate you to pay your parent's bill.

The law gives courts some discretion when enforcing filial responsibility laws. If you're barely making ends meet financially, courts typically won't require you to impoverish yourself to pay for your parent's care. Likewise, if you're paying significant costs for your own child, such as college tuition, this may exempt you from being responsible for your parent as well.

… If your parent abused you or abandoned you as a child, the law allows that she's undeserving of your financial support. However, some states have statutory requirements for abandonment. In Pennsylvania, your parent must have abandoned you for at least 10 years before you reached age 18.

My state, Minnesota, repealed its filial responsibility law in 1974.  But filial responsibility laws remain on the books in many states: 

 In a 2002 article titled, “Filial Responsibility: Can the Legal Duty to Support Our Parents Be Effectively Enforced?” by Shannon Frank Edelstone, appearing in the Fall 2002 issue of the American Bar Association’s Family Law Quarterly, the author listed thirty states that had filial responsibility laws on the books. 

Those states were Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

While each state’s laws vary, most provide that children have a duty to provide necessities for parents who cannot do so for themselves.

A recent Wall Street Journal article explored the question of being "on the hook for Mom's bills," describing a case where an adult son in Pennsylvania was ruled to owe more than $90,000 for his 65-year-old mother's hospital and nursing care bills after a car accident:

The … family's experience serves as a warning for middle-aged children with parents who are racking up long-term-care bills. In many states, including Pennsylvania, the filial-support law doesn't require lack of cooperation or asset shielding on the children's part. They simply have to be deemed by a judge to have the means to pay the bill, Ms. Pearson says.

The best defense against such laws, elder-law experts say, is planning. "If your parents aren't multimillionaires, then you need to get some advice way early, maybe when they're 65," says Carolyn Rosenblatt, a San Francisco mediator, elder-law attorney and registered nurse. "By the time they're in their 80s, most people need some help. How would you pay for that?"

Among the possible strategies: buying long-term-care insurance before health problems begin or building an in-law unit that you could rent out, perhaps to a child in college or starting a first job, until your parents need it.

I'm not really sure whether it is relevant to the discussion.  But this is, I think, perhaps the flip side of considering whether parents should allow their adult children to live at home.

 

_{(This post is part of the series on postsecondary education.)}

+ + +

I want to lay out some more facts to consider before we delve into the question, "What makes a child emancipated?"  At what point is a child "on his own," no longer bound by the requirement of obedience to parents, and under the expectation to provide for his own material support instead of asking it from his parents?

The problem from a legal, secular sense, in the United States, is that we have a patchwork of overlapping standards when it comes to the question of when a child is "free" from his parents.  Let's take a look.

Legal Emancipation

Wikipedia:

Emancipation of minors is a legal mechanism by which a minor is freed from control by his or her parents or guardians, and the parents or guardians are freed from any and all responsibility toward the child…

Children are minors, and therefore under the control of their parents or legal guardians, until they attain the age of majority, at which point they become adults. In most states this is either 18 years old, or requires the person be either both 18 and out of high school or at least 20 years old. However, in special circumstances, minors can be freed from control by their guardian before turning 18.

Besides attaining the age of 18, marriage or entry into the military generally  legally emancipates an under-18-year-old.  There is some variation in state law.

We're going to keep it simple here, so for the time being we will not consider special circumstances, and for the purpose of our argument, we will say that at age 18, or marriage, or entry into the military, a child is freed from legal control by his parents and parents are freed from compulsory material support of the child.

 + + +

But besides the strict legal consideration of who can be forced to support whom, and who can be forced to obey whom, we have other standards in place that suggest "dependency" is more complicated than that.

Take the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) requirements for dependency.  The FAFSA is the form that prospective college students have to fill out so that the government and other institutions can figure out what are their  material resources available to pay for college.  This number is used to determine how much need-based aid the student is eligible for.

Recall that after a child turns 18, a parent is not legally required to provide any material support for a child.  However, when it comes to figuring out how much material resources the child has in order to calculate eligibility for need-based aid, the child is counted as a dependent (as if the parents' wealth is available to him) long past age 18.  Here are the requirements for dependency in the context of the FAFSA determination:

Dependency According to FAFSA

 According to the link above,

An independent is anyone who:

• is 24 years of age or older by December 31 of the award year.
• is an orphan or ward of the court or was a ward of the court until the individual reached the age of 18.
• is a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States.
• is a graduate or professional student.
• is a married individual.
• has legal dependents other than a spouse.
• is [under age 18 and is] an emancipated child as determined by a court judge.
• is a student for whom a financial aid administrator makes a documented determination of independence by reason of other unusual circumstances.

Anyone who does not meet these requirements is a dependent.  

With regard to whether a child might be determined a non-dependent by reason of unusual circumstances:

Typically the FAFSA determines you are a dependent if you receive half of your income from your parents.

And note that you may still be a dependent according to the FAFSA even if you file a tax return as a non-dependent.

 This is very relevant, because it demonstrates that we have a social expectation that prospective students under the age of 24, even if legally emancipated, should be able to call on their parents' resources when paying for post-secondary education — that before they ask for a handout from the federal government, or from many institutions which offer need-based aid, they should use available resources from their families of origin.  

We don't, actually, compel the parents to provide those resources (that's what the legal emancipation at age 18 means).   But we take the existence of those resources into account, not just the resources that the 18-to-24-year-old actually controls.  

Now, if you've ever been an 18-year-old whose family is too wealthy to qualify for need-based aid, but whose family refuses to provide any material support for post-secondary education, this is going to feel pretty unfair.  But it's pretty clear, from the FAFSA definition of dependency and from the social pressure implicit in water-cooler conversations about college bills, that the onus to rectify that apparent unfairness is on the resource-rich but reluctant parents, and not on need-based financial aid programs either run by governments or by institutions.

In short, society generally expects parents to provide some material postsecondary educational assistance to 18-to-24-year-olds.   Some parents may disagree ("When you turn 18, you're on your own") but they seem to be in the minority, or at least not to have exerted enough political power to normalize this philosophy.  I think it's generally seen as a valid position to hold, but I don't think many people hold it.

 + + +

Health Insurance

There is no doubt that providing a means to pay for health care is a form of material support, and if you have to pay for your own health care out-of-pocket or pay for your own insurance policy, you are "supporting yourself" more than if you can remain on your parents' insurance policy.   Who's eligible to be a dependent for the purposes of determining who's covered by a health insurance policy?

To simplify, let's just look at one set of standards:  those set by the PPACA ("Obamacare") and subsequent regulations.  I'm getting this from here (pdf).

Definition of “Dependent” Who is Eligible for Coverage:

An [insurer] must base eligibility for dependent child coverage in terms of the relationship between the child and the [subscriber] and may not deny or restrict coverage based on factors, such as financial dependency on the [subscriber], residency with the [subscriber], student status, employment, marital status, or [except for a grandfathered-in exception that ends in 2014] eligibility for other coverage…

Plans and issuers are not required to make coverage available for the children or spouse of a child receiving dependent coverage…

The terms of the plan or insurance coverage providing dependent coverage cannot vary based on the age of the child, except for a child who is age 26 or over.

So under this relatively recent legislation, an insurer must extend dependent child coverage to an 18-to-25-year-old son or daughter of a subscriber, exactly as it extends coverage to a subscribers' children who are younger than 18.   It doesn't matter if the young adult is married, or a student, or employed, or living somewhere else.  After 2014, it won't matter if he or she is eligible for some other employment-based health insurance.  

So here's a situation where, at least according to the evidence enshrined in national legislation, we no longer expect a 26-year-old to fend for himself or herself.  

Does this impose a choice on the parent to incur a personal cost in order to benefit 18-to-25-year-old offspring?  It depends.  If the parent already has an employee-plus-dependent-children insurance plan for other reasons (for example, because there are younger children living at home), it doesn't cost the parent any more money to provide coverage to the 18-to-25-year-old offspring.  But if there aren't any younger children around, the parent does incur a cost to keep the 18-to-25-year-old offspring on his or her insurance plan, because if the parent didn't do that he could probably switch to a cheaper employee-plus-spouse-no-dependent-children plan.  Or maybe he could retire and cover his health costs some other way besides employer-provided health insurance.  So we're looking at a situation where the parent might incur a cost in order to continue supporting 18-to-26-year-old offspring, or might choose not to incur that cost and force the offspring to fend for himself or herself.

 

Transportation:  Automobiles and Automobile Insurance

A common kind of support that is provided by many parents to their offspring over age 18 is use of a family car, which requires somebody to pay for auto insurance.  Unlike with health insurance, there is "no certain age set across the insurance industry at which offspring are no longer eligible to stay on a parent's policy."  Instead, the usual requirement to include offspring on a parent's auto policy is residency.  If the individual is living in the parents' home, she can be included on the policy.  If she has established her own household, she cannot be included on the policy.  Students who live away at college but who maintain the parents' address as their "permanent" address often still count as "living with their parents" for the purposes of determining eligibility to stay on the parent's policy.  Sometimes the car has to be in the policyholder's name; sometimes all that's necessary is that the owner of the car reside in the same household with the policyholder.

+ + +

So here we have a variety of different "standard" definitions of who is a dependent and who is emancipated.  One thing is certain:  at age 18, you are legally free of the control of your parents, and your parents are legally free of the requirement to support you materially.  

But other standards seem to imply that, even though we don't compel it, we have a social expectation that young adults require support, and we have a social expectation that parents provide some kind of support according to their means — until some combination of the following factors:

•     the offspring attains the age of 24 or 26
•     the offspring is married
•     the offspring moves out of the house AND is not attending college
•     the offspring enters the U. S. military
•     the offspring enters graduate or professional school
•     the offspring has children of his/her own
•     the offspring demonstrates self-support and that no support is forthcoming from parents

Other legal ages of majority

These vary a lot state by state.  Here are some for my home state, Minnesota:

• The age at which a person is legally competent to consent to sexual activity is 16.
• The age at which a person can be tried in criminal court is 14.
• The age at which a person can be married, with parental consent, is 16.  Without parental consent, it's 18.
• The legal drinking age is 21.

Subjective emancipation — The tricky question

Still, though, these are all rather arbitrary conditions.  Why 18, or 24, or 26 — and not 16, or 28?  Those are all just numbers.  Why entry into the military, and not landing your first full-time job?  There may be good reasons to pick some of these rites of passage over others, but they are not inherently determiners of the one quality that matters when it comes to the moral requirements of parents towards offspring:  readiness to embark on independent adult life and to fulfill the duties of one's vocation.

Parents can't guarantee that their offspring (even assuming normal intelligence and physical/mental health) will acquire all the skills that an adult human being should, not even if they throw all their best efforts at the task.  That's because the young person is a person, with free will, and — news flash — persons with free will sometimes decide not to cooperate, or come up with their own lists of "necessary skills."  So even if there comes no point when a parent can say , "You are done, I did my job" — there must eventually be a point when a parent can rightfully say "I am done — I did the best I could, and now it's your turn to finish your growing and education on your own — if you choose to."

The question is, how do you know when either has happened?

(The introduction to this series is here.  An index of all posts is here.  The first part of this bit on fundamental Catholic principles is here.The second is here. )

+ + +

Okay, now, I've been through two posts in which I tried to summarize what the Catechism, Gaudium et Spes, and Familiaris Consortio has to say about certain questions:

1. What is the nature of the vocation that education must prepare us for?
2. What is the necessary content of education?
3. What are the responsibilities of parents toward their offspring?

Don't think I didn't notice that nobody commented on these posts in which I laboriously list church teachings. And at the same time, I got oodles of comments on several other posts (thank you), so I know you are all out there, just hoping I will get to the point.

The point is out there, but I can't see it yet.  I have to finish this bit first so I can see the big picture.  I'm really sorry it's taking me so long.  Hang in there.

+ + +

Moving on, what remains are these questions:

        3.  What are the responsibilities of offspring toward their parents?

        4.   How do things change when children are emancipated?

 

These are much shorter lists of answers.  Here we go.

What are the responsibilities of children toward their parents?

Children must honor and respect their parents out of gratitude for the gift of life and knowledge.  "The fourth commandment…shows us the order of charity.  God has willed that, after him, we should honor our parents to whom we owe life and who have handed on to us the knowledge of God.  We are obliged to honor and respect all those whom God, for our good, has vested with his authority" [CCC2197].  "Respect for parents (filial piety) derives from gratitude toward those who, by the gift of life, their love and their work, have brought their children into the world and enabled them to grow in stature, wisdom, and grace" [CCC2215] "'With all your heart honor your father, and do not forget the birth pangs of your mother.  Remember that through your parents you were born; what can you give back to them that equals their gift to you?'" [CCC2215]

A certain honor and respect, then, is owed parents unconditionally in recognition of the gift of life.

This is going to be a hard teaching for some whose mother or father has also caused them a great deal of hurt, but it is undeniable that the Catechism, as well as the Fourth Commandment, directs children to honor and respect parents in some degree regardless of the parents' failings.

I am reminded of our duty to be grateful to God for the gift of life even when the life we have is full of great sufferings.  Existence, even in fear and pain, is to be preferred over nonexistence, and preferred with gratitude, accepted as a gift.  This can also be hard, but I don't think we can get away with it.

But even though a certain honor and respect seems to be owed unconditionally, other degrees of honor are owed in response to the goodness of the parents.  Children "respond to the kindness of their parents with sentiments of gratitude, love, and trust" [GS 48].  The parents' kindness, then, is to be reciprocated by gratefulness, by love, and by trust.  Unkindness, maybe, doesn't reasonably earn this extra trust and love.

"As long as a child lives at home with his parents, the child should obey his parents in all that they ask of him when it is for his good or for the good of the family" [CCC2217].  Notice that this obedience is broad [in all that they ask] but not unqualified [when it is for his good or for the good of the family].  "Children should also obey the reasonable directions of their teachers and all to whom their parents have entrusted him.  But if a child is convinced in conscience that it would be morally wrong to obey a particular order, he must not do so."

"Obedience towards parents ceases with the emancipation of the children; not so respect, which is always owed to them."  "Children have the right and duty to choose their profession and state of life" [CCC2230].  "As they grow up, children should continue to respect their parents.  They should anticipate their wishes, willingly seek their advice, and accept their just admonitions.  They should assume their new responsibilities within a trusting relationship with their parents, willingly seeking their advice and counsel" [CCC2217].   Lot to chew on there — it looks like the children have a positive obligation to ask parents for their opinions and suggestions about the children's choices.

Finally, children owe their parents material and social support:  "Children should stand by [their parents]… when hardships overtake their parents and old age brings its loneliness."  They should esteem "widowhood, accepted bravely as a continuation of the marriage vocation" [GS 48].  

+ + +

Besides the things parents owe to children, and the things children owe to parents, it is also worthwhile to mention certain things which parents and children owe mutually to each other.  Oh, also siblings owe these to siblings.  Pay attention:  these are especially important when friction of one kind or another arises:

— All members of the family should "assist one another" "in a loving way" [GS48].

— All members of the family should maintain "a ready and generous openness of each and all to understanding, to forbearance, to pardon, to reconciliation" [FC21].

— "Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political, and even religious matters.  In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them" [GS28]

— Finally, with respect to parents considering their daughters' vocation and with respect to sons and daughters appreciating the gifts of their mother:  "The work of women in the home should be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value" [FC23].   (I don't think this is meant to exclude the work of men from recognition, it's just a reminder because women's work in the home has been and continues to be historically undervalued.)

+ + +

What about emancipation? 

Some of what's written above deals with the change when children are emancipated — for instance, when children no longer live at home and they are emancipated, they no longer owe obedience to their parents — but they do owe them respect, honor, the courtesy of asking their advice and opinions, and the courtesy of accepting their just admonitions.  Basically, they owe it to their parents to accept that their lives continue to be the parents' business, even if they don't any longer have to do what they say.   And they also owe their parents material support in hard times and social support in lonely times.  

Regardless, it's clear that a major change in relationship occurs when the child is no longer at home and is "emancipated." It isn't too hard to determine whether a child is living at home or not.  A harder question is:  When is the child "emancipated?"  How do we know he is ready to be "launched?"  

I will start considering that question in another post.  For now chew on this:

Man achieves dignity, which "demands he act according to a knowing and free choice…from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure…when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective and skillful action, apt helps to that end" [GS15].

This and a small number of the other passages quoted in this three-part post will be a jumping-off point to consider the event of "emancipation."  Stay tuned.