Tough love, or welfare fraud?

[jacee]

They have no money that they can access.

Workers are unlikely to deny someone obviously in need of funds for basic care, based on an addict's nebulous story of his/her family cheating him/her out of his money.

But I think it happens more often than we realize.

The two points I'm making:

- Families that withold ALL funds from an addict aren't practicing 'tough love'. It's abuse.

And it's welfare fraud ... By the trustee.

[cybercoma]

If they have money, even if it's held by a trustee, they can't get welfare. That's what I'm trying to say.

[Mr.Canada]

If they have money, even if it's held by a trustee, they can't get welfare. That's what I'm trying to say.

However the trustee is with holding the money thereby is in default of their own responsibilities as trustees.

[cybercoma]

However the trustee is with holding the money thereby is in default of their own responsibilities as trustees.

In which case they can be sued and/or charged with neglect.

[TimG]

However the trustee is with holding the money thereby is in default of their own responsibilities as trustees.

I would be surprised if a court took that position if the trustee has repeatedly attempted to get the addict to seek treatment and justifies withholding cash on the basis that pressuring the addict seeking treatment is in the best interest of the addict.

[jacee]

No human being will ever be denied funds for food and shelter by the court, and I think its clear that the courts would force trustees to release funds for basic needs, IF it ever gets to court.

Meantime he/she needs a place to live and food right now.

And gov workers can't investigate all addicts nebulous and possibly delusional claims of money held by family.

So it happens.

I think people should be aware at least that you can't abscond with someone's money without providing for basic care.

[TimG]

No human being will ever be denied funds for food and shelter by the court

He is not being denied. He is being told that he needs to meet certain conditions. It is his choice to refuse to meet those conditions. There are many homeless on the street because they cannot/will not live by conditions imposed by the homeless shelter.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Well I suppose it’s ski season in Hell since I actually agree with you………In that if a person is truly incapable of handling themselves such as in the case of a mental illness and their family has the financial means to care for them, they most certainly should take care of their family member, or at the very least demonstrate that they are making an attempt to…..I state the later part, as I’m sure you can appreciate many homeless people suffering with a form of mental illness reject help from others and will choose in some cases to sleep on the streets as opposed to in a shelter.

[Bonam]

If money belongs to someone and someone holding it in trust for them refuses to produce it when the owner wants to terminate the trustee relationship, I'm sure the trustee is in breach of some kind of agreement and legal action can/should be taken. Screw providing for basic needs, if they are the person's assets, and he/she has not been declared legally incompetent, he should have every right to take possession of those assets, whether they provide for basic needs or a lot more for that matter. I don't see anything "grey" here in terms of legality, seems pretty cut and dry.

I can't help but suspect we aren't quite getting the whole story from jacee here.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

And gov workers can't investigate all addicts nebulous and possibly delusional claims of money held by family.

They can and they do. If the addict can't account for their money, then they're denied welfare. Unfortunately, good people get caught up in this problem. For instance, I can't get into details too specific, but I'll tell you about a particular case that I'm familiar with. A man applies for welfare and is denied because he can't provide receipts for a large portion of the money he spent in the last two years. Much of it was food and clothing for which he didn't save the receipts. However, some of it was due to a breakup with an ex partner, who took several hundred dollars out of their shared account when she left. Since he could not accurately account for where the money went, they denied him welfare. He appealed and lost the appeal as well because he didn't have receipts to document where the money went.

The problem is that he legitimately was destitute. He could not afford food or rent, had no money and no credit. He didn't realize two years prior that he would be applying for welfare because things were alright for him. When you're doing ok, even living paycheck to pay check, throwing away your receipt for that package of socks you bought or the dinner you went out to with your wife is not an unreasonable thing. Except when they do their financial test to see if you meet the criteria for welfare, you need to account for every penny you've spent in the last two years. If you can't, then you do not qualify. Even though they could see clearly that his bank accounts were empty and he had no investments or savings. Their answer to him? See if you can move in with family. He had no family left. Their response to that--move in with a friend then.

As it relates to your post, if a claimant says their family is witholding funds from them, they will be ineligible for welfare.

Edited November 4, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I can't help but suspect we aren't quite getting the whole story from jacee here.

I think she may have been told a story from someone that was embellishing or not telling the whole truth and she's just repeating it here. I don't think she's intentionally being misleading.

[Bonam]

I think she may have been told a story from someone that was embellishing or not telling the whole truth and she's just repeating it here. I don't think she's intentionally being misleading.

Yes that could be.

[jacee]

'cybercoma' said ...

As it relates to your post, if a claimant says their family is witholding funds from them, they will be ineligible for welfare.

_________________

Yes ... So if someone's hungry and homeless, they're not going to say that are they?

And welfare is granted, as it should be.

My question isn't really about welfarem

The issue I'm raising is ...that such families who cut a person off from his own funds totally think they're doing the 'right thing', practicing 'tough love', 'not enabling' an addict.

But I disagree: I think it's cruel and abusive to refuse to release the person's own funds for their basic needs.

[cybercoma]

But I disagree: I think it's cruel and abusive to refuse to release the person's own funds for their basic needs.

jacee, the person can get shelter and food in rehab. That's the point. When families supplement an addict's income, they're buying their drugs for them.

[WWWTT]

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.

Good comment!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

It is his choice to refuse to meet those conditions.

This is false.

An addiction can take away your ability to choose.

WWWTT

[TimG]

An addiction can take away your ability to choose.

Then how come some addicts can and do recover? It is not random chance. It is because they realize that they *do* have a choice and they *can* choose to recover.

[eyeball]

I doubt if Jesus himself could tell the difference between the people and situations Jacee and Cybercoma have described but I'd bet he'd still probably know what to do for them.

Am I really supposed to believe New Brunswick would just let somebody die of starvation on the doorstep of their welfare department because they couldn't account for a pair pf socks they claimed to have bought two years ago?

[WWWTT]

Then how come some addicts can and do recover? It is not random chance. It is because they realize that they *do* have a choice and they *can* choose to recover.

I do not fully understand why?

I know an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

I do not think you fully understand either?

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

This is false.

An addiction can take away your ability to choose.

Actually, not going into rehab is a choice - an addict makes the choice not to seek and/or accept help.

Edited November 5, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Am I really supposed to believe New Brunswick would just let somebody die of starvation on the doorstep of their welfare department because they couldn't account for a pair pf socks they claimed to have bought two years ago?

I'm telling you that the exact situation I described has happened. I know first hand. The test of eligibility is quite strict, but that's why there's an appeal process. He also lost the appeal because he couldn't account for where his money went.

[jacee]

We're talking about different situations.

I'm talking about families that take control of an addict's OWN money and leave them to die in the street ... in the pretense of 'not enabling'.

[cybercoma]

We're talking about different situations.

I'm talking about families that take control of an addict's OWN money and leave them to die in the street ... in the pretense of 'not enabling'.

Do you understand the concept of "enabling"? I'm not trying to be condescending, but you don't seem to understand. You say they take the addicts money and leave them to die in the street, as though the addict is not killing his or her self already.

[eyeball]

It's hard to imagine anyone at all being eligible to collect welfare there. You must have the lowest number of people collecting welfare anywhere on the planet.

Ne'er do wells are to NB what murderers are to Texas.

[jacee]

@ cybercoma

Addicts do eat and sleep.

You think it's ok to steal control of an addict's OWN money and not use a little bit of it to feed and house them somewhere?

I say families don't have that right.

I say it's criminal.