Tough love, or welfare fraud?

[jacee]

I have become aware, through an acquaintance,

[Mr.Canada]

I have become aware, through an acquaintance,

Did your whole post not make it through? Edited November 2, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[jacee]

I changed my mind, because it's a complex topic, difficult to explain. However, since a partial post went through I'll give it a shot.

I'll try to be as clear as possible:

I am aware that there are families who withold ALL assets and funds belonging to a family member who is an addict/alcoholic, providing them with no shelter, no food,and NO money at all for those basic needs.

The person is incapable of employment and thus forced to apply for welfare ... or die in the streets.

The family calls it 'tough love' and 'not enabling' an alcoholic/addict.

I call it welfare fraud by those who hold the power (of attorney), but refuse to release the funds for basic needs.

Let me be clear:

- I am only referring to money and assets belonging to the person himself (not family assets).

- I am only referring to cases where the person has NOT been declared legally incompetent, because in such cases families are required by law to support the person, where they are able.

- I am talking ONLY about cases where families have gained control of personal assets and do not release any funds for basic needs.

Eta

I believe it's a legal grey area, and wonder how often it happens.

And I wonder if we taxpayers should be picking up the welfare tab while well off families desert their responsibilities.

Edited November 2, 2012 by jacee

[Mr.Canada]

I like this topic jacee. Definitely worth a post for sure and I'm glad you shared it. I'm not a lawyer so I will give only a layman's interpretation.

I don't believe that the person is committing welfare fraud by receiving benefits in his/her current situation as the assets are not in that persons control.

If this family has control over his estate and all his affairs like a power of attorney then they are definitely in breach of that contract. I am almost positive that this person should contact a family lawyer immediately and sue his family. It will take a few years but will most certainly result in a positive outcome.

If going to legal route be sure to take great care in choosing the lawyer, get a reputable one. Many good lawyers will take a certain number of legal Aid cases a year after hearing this story they may take it.

if a settlement is reached, because this person has substance issues, it can always be placed in a structured settlement where a certain amount of money is released each month. This money is released to the person named and to no other. Or it can released to a trustee who would see that the persons rent is paid, food is bought etc then the remainder is given to that person.

If this person is on ODSP a structured settlement isn't considered income so it will effect their benefits.

I hope this has helped. It's infuriating for me to read things like this. People in need deserve dignity and respect and this person is getting neither.

[jacee]

It seems barbaric to me, to put someone on the street with no access to his/her own resources, and expect the rest of us to provide the money to feed and shelter them.

I've heard such stories from down-and-outers before, but discounted them. Now I wonder how many are true.

Tough love? I think it's way beyond that, in the range of abuse.

And I say welfare fraud by the trustee.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know how they can get away with it. There should be some accountability when someone is given control over someone else's finances. Wouldn't the person applying for welfare have to list the assets that are being held? And why wouldn't that raise a red flag that would result in an investigation?

[guyser]

Somethings not adding up here.

If the person owns assets plus has money but is not in control of same, such as a trustee or Power of Attorney over them then they would be provided shelter and food from that which the person owns. IOW the funding would be there, but tightly controlled.

But then again, the person may well apply and not be truthful in which case knowing how thorough the social services are (read -Not!) then they could very well hood wink the agency and get money.

Chance are tho, they will get caught later on.

[jacee]

Point being ... Funds are being witheld.

Person is in immediate need.

Claiming assets they can't access?

What for?

[Topaz]

I had a cousin in a similar situation, the father wanted the son to hit "bottom" as they say and he did, he ended up in the hospital in a coma from his drinking. His kidney shut down, he swelled up like a 9 month pregnant woman, and he did survive and his sister in law, talked his bro. to talk to the father and the father did give him money for an apartment and furniture. The KEY item that stopped the guy from drinking was that he had only enough of his liver to live and if he drank again, the doctors told him he would die. This all happened back in the early '90 and today, at the age of 61, he can hardly walk, needs a walker and looks like a 80 year old. When the father died, he left his son money in a trust and he lives on that now. Since his son was an alcoholic, he didn't want his hard earn money,being spent on booze by his son. We never thought his guy would still be living today or even quite drinking but miracles do happen.

[Mr.Canada]

Topaz it's truly sad how some people abuse their bodies. I'm on the fence on things like this. One one hand yes, these people need help and are deserving of charity, no doubt about it. Not helping them is not an option to me. They must be helped.

But on the other hand this damage that has been done to their bodies has been done to themselves by themselves and their lack of self control. This is the result of that. if they had chosen not to drink or use or whatever then this would not have happened.

[TimG]

I call it welfare fraud by those who hold the power (of attorney), but refuse to release the funds for basic needs.

Nothing forces the state to provide welfare. If the state gives the person welfare the state is enabling the addict and making the problem worse.

[jacee]

So alcoholics should starve and die in the cold?

Apparently some of their families agree, Tim.

I think it's barbaric.

But welfare is provided to them, while their families sit on their money that should be available to them for food and shelter.

[Guest American Woman]

So alcoholics should starve and die in the cold?

They should go to rehab.

Apparently some of their families agree, Tim.

That's not really a fair determination at all. Unless you have been in on it with them throughout the years, unless you know first hand what they are feeling, what they have gone through, what their hopes are, you have no basis for such a judgement. Perhaps they are trying to force rehab by forcing them to hit rock bottom.

Edited November 3, 2012 by American Woman

[jacee]

Topaz, you're right that families sometimes think they should 'hit bottom'- they think that's 'tough love' ... But do they have the right to withold money to cover basic food and shelter needs, which then have to be covered by welfare - ie. The rest of us?

Witholding food and shelter isn't 'tough love', it's abuse.

[jacee]

Topaz, you're right that families sometimes think they should 'hit bottom'- they think that's 'tough love' ... But do they have the right to withold money to cover basic food and shelter needs, which then have to be covered by welfare - ie. The rest of us?

Witholding food and shelter isn't 'tough love', it's abuse.

[TimG]

So alcoholics should starve and die in the cold?

You have obviously have never had to deal with an addict in the family. Interventions force addicts to choose between cleaning up and serious consequences such as being cut off from money and the family, To work, the consequences must be real so if an addict does not choose to clean up the family must follow through with their threats. It is the most humane way to deal with and addict. Enabling an addict is slow motion murder.

There is also another angle: you can't give and addict money because they will spend it on drugs and it will be gone. Giving the addict food and shelter may end up be an invitation to rob you blind. Also, keeping the addicts own money safe is doing them a favour in the long run. Keep in mind that the addict can get their money back by stopping drugs - not simple - but possible.

Edited November 3, 2012 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

You have obviously have never had to deal with an addict in the family. Interventions force addicts to choose between cleaning up and serious consequences such as being cut off from money and the family, To work, the consequences must be real so if an addict does not choose to clean up the family must follow through with their threats. It is the most humane way to deal with and addict. Enabling an addict is slow motion murder.

I agree. If the worst happens, at least they didn't enable it. As I said, rehab is an option.

[jacee]

Every human being deserves food and shelter.

It is not a family's right to withold funds for these basic needs.

It's criminal fraud against the taxpayers, and arguably criminal neglect and abuse of the person whose OWN money is being witheld from him/her.

I know addicts and addictions, and I know that no human being should be denied food and shelter.

Remember that we are talking about families that take control of an addicts own money and then refuse to release or use ANY of his own money for food and shelter.

I believe that's criminal.

[TimG]

It is not a family's right to withhold funds for these basic needs.

I never met an addict who, when given money for food and shelter, would actually spend it on food and shelter.

I know addicts and addictions, and I know that no human being should be denied food and shelter.

If the addict is so far gone that they cannot generate new money with a job then preserving the assets that they do have is the kindest thing a family could do. All the addict needs to do to get access to the funds again is sober up. It is not an unreasonable expectation.

[Guest American Woman]

Anyone who keeps ignoring rehab as an option isn't really looking for a solution, IMO - just a way to keep things status quo for the addict.

Edited November 3, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I never met an addict who, when given money for food and shelter, would actually spend it on food and shelter.

They wouldn't have to give the addict money, though; they could provide the landlord with the rent check every month and buy food rather than give grocery money. It seems to me if someone has control over someone else's money, that's the usual route to go.

Something just doesn't seem right about the whole situation, but the addict does have the option of sobering up, as we've both pointed out. Furthermore, why doesn't every homeless person qualify for welfare?

[jacee]

You are avoiding the point Tim.

When families withold a person's basic food and shelter funds, those costs are borne by us taxpayers.

Cruel and inhumane aside ...

It's fraud.

[jacee]

You are avoiding the point Tim.

When families withold a person's basic food and shelter funds, those costs are borne by us taxpayers.

Cruel and inhumane aside ...

It's fraud.

[cybercoma]

You are avoiding the point Tim.

When families withold a person's basic food and shelter funds, those costs are borne by us taxpayers.

Cruel and inhumane aside ...

It's fraud.

It doesn't actually work that way. A person can't get welfare without undergoing a comprehensive income evaluation. If they have the funds to pay for shelter and food, they will be ineligible to receive social assistance.

[cybercoma]

I'm assuming you're talking about "we pay for it" in the sense that they can get welfare. Correct me if I'm wrong. I would like you to explain more clearly with a concrete example if you can. If the person still has money, they can't get welfare. In fact, if the person had money any time in the last 2 years, they can't get welfare in NB, unless they can account for every single penny that they spent. It seems your hypothetical example may not occur in real life.