Tough love, or welfare fraud?

[cybercoma]

He doesn't 'deserve' food and shelter?

Of course he deserves it. He needs to wake up to that fact and go get it by checking in to rehab.

He 'deserves' to be starved and frozen because he's an alcoholic?

He deserves to get help. That's what he needs to do.

If we were apprehended leaving a dog to starve and freeze we'd face charges, possibly go to jail.

It's not the same thing at all. The dog doesn't have a choice to check into rehab to get food and shelter.

If the dog had a trust fund for his care and someone starved and froze him to keep the money ... what would we think of such a person?

Bizarre metaphor.

If a man had a trust fund and trustee refused to provide any money for his food and shelter so he starved and froze and they kept all his money ... would we say they're doing the right thing?

I would say it's the addict's fault that they starved and froze because they refused to check themselves into rehab. I would commend the family for keeping resources from the person that would dissuade him from getting help and just support his habit.

I've gone through this in my own immediate family. To me, it just sounds like you've been manipulated because the addiction doesn't care. The addiction just needs to be fed. So it causes the addict to manipulate people to feel bad for them and give them resources to feed their addiction.

The greatest gift you can give that person is to persuade them to get into rehab. If that means taking everything away from them, so they hit rock bottom and their only chance of survival is checking into rehab, then that's what you need to do. Because continuing down the path of addiction will kill them regardless.

This is what "not enabling" someone is about. It's about love and it's about realizing that the person needs to be persuaded to make this decision themselves. It's about them realizing that the path they are on leads to the grave and they need to make the decision to take the other path, into rehab, and get their life back.

[jacee]

Of course he deserves it. He needs to wake up to that fact and go get it by checking in to rehab.

He deserves to get help. That's what he needs to do.

It's not the same thing at all. The dog doesn't have a choice to check into rehab to get food and shelter.

Bizarre metaphor.

I would say it's the addict's fault that they starved and froze because they refused to check themselves into rehab. I would commend the family for keeping resources from the person that would dissuade him from getting help and just support his habit.

I've gone through this in my own immediate family. To me, it just sounds like you've been manipulated because the addiction doesn't care. The addiction just needs to be fed. So it causes the addict to manipulate people to feel bad for them and give them resources to feed their addiction.

The greatest gift you can give that person is to persuade them to get into rehab. If that means taking everything away from them, so they hit rock bottom and their only chance of survival is checking into rehab, then that's what you need to do. Because continuing down the path of addiction will kill them regardless.

This is what "not enabling" someone is about. It's about love and it's about realizing that the person needs to be persuaded to make this decision themselves. It's about them realizing that the path they are on leads to the grave and they need to make the decision to take the other path, into rehab, and get their life back.

So an unreformed alcoholic should be deprived of all food and shelter?

I have no role in this, no say.

I'm acquainted with the family, aware of their choice to make no provision for food or shelter.

This is a good man, stricken down by grief a few years ago.

They are greedy people who want him to die so they get to keep his money ... and it's a lot of money, and it's his.

'Tough love', 'not enabling' ... that's a convenient socially acceptable cover up for what some might recognize as premeditated attempted murder.

It's been helpful having this discussion.

It's clearer to me now.

In cases where an alcoholic/addict does have assets, they should never be in the control of those who stand to benefit from his/her death.

It's just too easy for them to get away with murder ... or criminal negligence causing death ... premeditated ... for personal gain.

All they have to do is get him drunk and get him to sign a PoA that doesn't allow for food and shelter ... and claim they're 'not enabling' him. It sounds good ... and it's a great cover for a horrific crime.

Obviously you fell for it cybercoma, TimG, AmWo, possibly others.

I wonder again how widespread these situations are ... where families of addicts are motivated by greed, not altruism.

Because I think they're being enabled in their crimes by those so slavishly devoted to the ideal of 'not enabling' an alcoholic that they are blinded to the inhumanity and criminality of denying use of a little of his own funds for his own food and shelter.

Where an addict has no money, they still can get welfare to meet basic needs ... and as I said, addicts do eat and sleep ... and maybe that buys them the time and the strength to choose rehab.

An addict with no food and shelter will die fast in winter, without the time and strength to choose rehab.

Works much better for the families that want the addict's money!

It is the same as the dog, cc, because the addiction is irrelevant: It's just the convenient excuse for taking his money.

Edited November 15, 2012 by jacee

[cybercoma]

How is the addiction irrelevant when the entire point of you starting this thread is about the pretext of "not enabling" an addict?

You continue to miss the point that the addict is making a choice to die rather than get help. Having POA and releasing funding so he can die quicker is not helping him.

Edited November 15, 2012 by cybercoma

[jacee]

How is the addiction irrelevant when the entire point of you starting this thread is about the pretext of "not enabling" an addict?

Because I've realized during the course of this discussion that the real issue in this case is the money, not the addict or addiction.

I realized that in part because of your assumption that the PoA would include conditions related to rehabilitation ... but it doesn't ... because rehabilitation is not the purpose of this family in this case.

I started this thread because something about this situation didn't seem right ... and it isn't right.

You continue to miss the point that the addict is making a choice to die rather than get help. Having POA and releasing funding so he can die quicker is not helping him.

Are you absolutely certain he'll die quicker without food and shelter than with it? I think you're quite wrong about that.

How would having a room and food cause him to die faster?

Money's not a good idea, I agree.

But using HIS OWN money to pay for a room and grocery delivery/meal ticket ... how would that make him die faster? It wouldn't.

Malnutrition and pneumonia will make him die faster though ... and that seems to be the purpose.

[Guest American Woman]

Obviously you fell for it cybercoma, TimG, AmWo, possibly others.

I "fell for" nothing. Rehab is the best possible solution for the addict. It's what's going to give him his life back. It's what's going to save his life. Access to his money is not going to do that.

If you are so involved in this situation that you have full disclosure to the legalities and the reasons behind them, you are in the position to encourage the addict to go into rehab - and that is what you should be investing your time and energy in, imo.

[jacee]

I "fell for" nothing. Rehab is the best possible solution for the addict. It's what's going to give him his life back. It's what's going to save his life. Access to his money is not going to do that.

If you are so involved in this situation that you have full disclosure to the legalities and the reasons behind them, you are in the position to encourage the addict to go into rehab - and that is what you should be investing your time and energy in, imo.

I have no direct involvement.

How much success have you had in encouraging addicts to go to rehab? Isn't that a decision they have to make for themselves?

I don't know him well, just acquainted with the family, I don't know anything about rehab, whether it's available to him, whether the family would allow it (I doubt it ... rehabilitation doesn't seem to be their plan.)

I've heard he's living on the street and appears quite malnourished and ill.

Other people feed him occasionally, but his family won't.

Frankly, it's become a bit of a scandal as people are hinting that the family's purpose is to keep his money for themselves. They talk about him being "better off dead" and what they can do with the money when he is.

I didn't believe that when I began this thread, but reflecting on what other posters had to say, and what I've heard of and from the family ... It's clear they are not encouraging rehab.

[TimG]

How much success have you had in encouraging addicts to go to rehab? Isn't that a decision they have to make for themselves?

Addicts first have to be educated about the options and told that they need to clean up. If that is not enough then the people that care about the addict need to apply pressure by cutting off relationships and/or money. Addicts often don't sober up until they are faced with consequences for continuing to drink.

I don't know him well, just acquainted with the family, I don't know anything about rehab, whether it's available to him, whether the family would allow it (I doubt it ... rehabilitation doesn't seem to be their plan.)

It is available to him from social services even if the family does not cover it. AA is free and there are people at meetings that will help. If he has a trust I would be very surprised if money would not be made available if he made an attempt to sober up.

I didn't believe that when I began this thread, but reflecting on what other posters had to say, and what I've heard of and from the family ... It's clear they are not encouraging rehab.

Well even if they are as bloody minded as you suggest the addict still has choices. If he sobered up he would likely find that some family members would reach out and start to repair relationships (maybe not all). Never judge a family that has an addict in it unless you have been there yourself. The family is as damaged as the addict. Sometimes there are other addicts in the same family which are not as far gone. Edited November 15, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

Addicts first have to be educated about the options and told that they need to clean up. If that is not enough then the people that care about the addict need to apply pressure by cutting off relationships and/or money. Addicts often don't sober up until they are faced with consequences for continuing to drink.

It is available to him from social services even if the family does not cover it. AA is free and there are people at meetings that will help. If he has a trust I would be very surprised if money would not be made available if he made an attempt to sober up.

Well even if they are as bloody minded as you suggest the addict still has choices. If he sobered up he would likely find that some family members would reach out and start to repair relationships (maybe not all). Never judge a family that has an addict in it unless you have been there yourself. The family is as damaged as the addict. Sometimes there are other addicts in the same family which are not as far gone.

I hope you're right.

In this case, however, I think he'd have to not only sober up but fight them in court to regain access to his money. From what I've heard about his condition, I doubt he has the strength.

I do think that having food and shelter might help him gain that strength, give him a better chance than he has now.

I don't agree with denying food and shelter to any human being, and I don't think any court would either.

Perhaps we'll find out whether a judge will agree that denying him his own money for food and shelter is what's 'best' for him.

What's your guess what the judge will say TimG, cybercoma, AmWo, guyser ... anyone?

Some people - neighbours - are considering intervening, because they are concerned about ill intent by his siblings. I may join them. I believe a court judgement would be informative for this and other families about what you can and can't do with an addict's own money.

It's a bit intimidating as the family is known to have a vindictive streak along with the greediness, but what's happening to him here just isn't right.

He used to hide himself in other parts of town but lately has reappeared in the neighbourhood, embarrassing his family but he's staying put. It's perhaps his only weapon to fight them, and I think his effort deserves encouragement.

I sympathize with those who've been through it with a family member, especially if it's your child. Not the case here. These are mature siblings ... known for greed and vindictiveness, and always jealous of his wealth. When his wife died he descended into grief and drink ... and the family pounced. Love, tough or otherwise, isn't the driving force here.

Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts.

Edited November 15, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

I sympathize with those who've been through it with a family member, especially if it's your child. Not the case here. These are mature siblings ... known for greed and vindictiveness, and always jealous of his wealth. When his wife died he descended into grief and drink ... and the family pounced. Love, tough or otherwise, isn't the driving force here.

Well that is your opinion. The reality is the BEST thing that he could do before going to court is check into a rehab center. In fact, if he is going to court he should say that he does not want money for food and shelter but money for a 6-9 month stay in one of the better private rehab facilities in the country (there is a good one in Nanaimo). He also should ask that an independent trustee be appointed. i.e. if there real doubts to the sincerity of the family then he should acknowledge that he needs to go to rehab but would like someone else to take care of the money until he cleans up. I doubt any judge would refuse either request.

You have indicated that there are people who care enough about him to try and help. These are the people that need to encourage him to make the right choices. If I was to talk to him I would point out that the best revenge he could get on his nasty family (assuming there is a basis for this claim) is for him to sober up and reclaim his money.

I urge you and all of the other people who would like to help him to give him the help he needs. It is not enough to get a court judgment for money for 'food and shelter'. Get him to go to rehab. If people around him have the energy to help in a court case - help by securing funding for a long stay in a rehab center and a new trustee.

Edited November 15, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

Well that is your opinion. The reality is the BEST thing that he could do before going to court is check into a rehab center. In fact, if he is going to court he should say that he does not want money for food and shelter but money for a 6-9 month stay in one of the better private rehab facilities in the country (there is a good one in Nanaimo).

He also should ask that an independent trustee be appointed. i.e. if there real doubts to the sincerity of the family then he should acknowledge that he needs to go to rehab but would like someone else to take care of the money until he cleans up. I doubt any judge would refuse either request.

You have indicated that there are people who care enough about him to try and help. These are the people that need to encourage him to make the right choices. If I was to talk to him I would point out that the best revenge he could get on his nasty family (assuming there is a basis for this claim) is for him to sober up and reclaim his money.

I urge you and all of the other people who would like to help him to give him the help he needs. It is not enough to get a court judgment for money for 'food and shelter'. Get him to go to rehab. If people around him have the energy to help in a court case - help by securing funding for a long stay in a rehab center and a new trustee.

Helping him get some access to some of his own money will open some doors, maybe rehab ... if a judge can pry his family's fingers off some of his money.

[TimG]

Helping him get some access to some of his own money will open some doors, maybe rehab ... if a judge can pry his family's fingers off some of his money.

You missed my entire point. If he wants the judge to sympathize then he should ask for money for rehab instead of 'food and shelter'. Asking only for 'food and shelter' plays into to the trustee's hands because the courts would be enabling the addict.

[jacee]

You missed my entire point. If he wants the judge to sympathize then he should ask for money for rehab instead of 'food and shelter'. Asking only for 'food and shelter' plays into to the trustee's hands because the courts would be enabling the addict.

Yes of course rehab would be a consideration.

Of course that will be suggested.

But it's his choice.

However, you're evading my main point ...

Food and shelter 'enables' staying alive.

It's not a 'reward' for good behaviour nor to be used as a weapon for punishment, nor as a deterrent for 'bad' behaviour.

Not even for prisoners of war ...

Articles 11, 12, 13 state that: Food must be of a similar quality and quantity to that of the Belligerent's own soldiers, and POWs can not be denied food as a punishment;

Nobody's saying that you must supply food and shelter for an addict in your family out of your own pocket, if they have none of their own. In that case, food and shelter funds are provided by welfare ... and access to treatment programs too.

But addicts who have their own money don't qualify for welfare, so IF you take control of an addict's own money, you MUST make provision for basic necessities that sustain life.

Chances are that addicts in such circumstances do get welfare by not saying anything about their money. In that case, we taxpayers are paying the shot while the family controling the money stands to benefit, upon the addict's death, from their crime (fraud).

It's not society's responsibility to pay the cost of food and shelter for addicts who have their own money.

It's the family that controls his money who MUST make provision for basic necessities.

And I'm confident the courts will agree.

And if a family member is charged, convicted and incarcerated, as I think they should be, they can't be denied food either.

Nobody in our society can be denied food as punishment ... not for crime ... and not for addiction ... under the DISGUISE of 'not enabling'.

Those of you who think you can legally deny an addict access to his own money for food and shelter better give your head a shake:

It's a crime.

Every human being, regardless of affliction, has a right to life.

LIFE,LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON.

7. Everyone has the right to life,liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Edited November 16, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

Food and shelter 'enables' staying alive.

It's not a 'reward' for good behaviour nor to be used as a weapon for punishment, nor as a deterrent for 'bad' behaviour.

Frankly, you are no different than those activist druggies on the downtown east side who spend vast amounts of energy lobbying for government funded shooting galleries. If these people spent a fraction of the effort they put into lobbying the government into cleaning up their personal lives they would be clean and sober today and must better off. But they don't because their addiction turns them into egomanics that seek 'causes' that allow them to avoid facing up to their own bad choices.

This crusade of yours is pathetic because you seek to use a sick man as your tool to make some irrelevant point of law when you should be doing whatever you can to get this guy into rehab. I suspect you do it because it massages your ego by battling people you have decided are evil (which may not even be true - we only have your word for it) and confronting a "victim" with hard truths is messy and difficult and does not make you feel good - even if it the right thing to do.

Rehab is the ONLY thing you should be discussing. Forget your useless crusades. No one gives a damn. You have a sick man that needs your help. Why don't you help him?

Edited November 16, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

Frankly, you are no different than those activist druggies on the downtown east side who spend vast amounts of energy lobbying for government funded shooting galleries. If these people spent a fraction of the effort they put into lobbying the government into cleaning up their personal lives they would be clean and sober today and must better off. But they don't because their addiction turns them into egomanics that seek 'causes' that allow them to avoid facing up to their own bad choices.

This crusade of yours is pathetic because you seek to use a sick man as your tool to make some irrelevant point of law when you should be doing whatever you can to get this guy into rehab. I suspect you do it because it massages your ego by battling people you have decided are evil (which may not even be true - we only have your word for it) and confronting a "victim" with hard truths is messy and difficult and does not make you feel good - even if it the right thing to do.

Rehab is the ONLY thing you should be discussing. Forget your useless crusades. No one gives a damn. You have a sick man that needs your help. Why don't you help him?

How would you "help" him?

Neither I nor he can do a damn thing unless his family is forced to release his money for food and shelter, in rehab or elsewhere.

A point of law?

More like a point of life or death.

Edited November 17, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

How would you "help" him?

You said this:

Some people - neighbors - are considering intervening, because they are concerned about ill intent by his siblings. I may join them.

From this it sounds like there is a group of people thinking of intervening. This group of people should look into treatment centers that are available. The best choice would be one that does not require detox in advance (i.e. if he agrees there is a no need to depend on him staying sober - he can go right away). You also need to figure out what government funded options are available (in BC the government funded route would a trip to detox followed by a stay in a recovery house until a seat opens up in a 4 week treatment center followed by a return to a recovery house for 6-9 months. The best private option would be Edgewood which is 2 months in a treatment center followed by 4-7 months in a recovery house run by the treatment center)

You then talk to him and tell him that there are people who can help him. There are places that would get him off the street help him clean up and a chance to talk to people who have gone through trials like this and survived. If he is angry at his siblings tell him the best way to get back at them is to clean up his life. Ask him if he thinks his wife would want to see him die on the street. Tell him that if he is willing to do this that you will ask the trustee for the money to pay and if it is refused then say you will go to court on his behalf to request funding and a new trustee. Tell him that if he is not willing to go then there is nothing you can do for him (do not offer to fight only for food money - you have to make it clear - you will fight for him to get money to go to a treatment center or you will not fight at all).

In my opinion, there is no justification for refusing the cost of a treatment center that can take him immediately - even if it drains most of his trust since he is likely to die without major intervention (50K would be required for a stay at Edgewood). If the trustee refuses then this would be the basis for the court case to remove the trustee since he is clearly not managing the trust in the best interest of the beneficiary. You will need the advice of a lawyer to help with these arguments.

Edited November 17, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

You said this:

From this it sounds like there is a group of people thinking of intervening. This group of people should look into treatment centers that are available. The best choice would be one that does not require detox in advance (i.e. if he agrees there is a no need to depend on him staying sober - he can go right away). You also need to figure out what government funded options are available (in BC the government funded route would a trip to detox followed by a stay in a recovery house until a seat opens up in a 4 week treatment center followed by a return to a recovery house for 6-9 months. The best private option would be Edgewood which is 2 months in a treatment center followed by 4-7 months in a recovery house run by the treatment center)

You then talk to him and tell him that there are people who can help him. There are places that would get him off the street help him clean up and a chance to talk to people who have gone through trials like this and survived. If he is angry at his siblings tell him the best way to get back at them is to clean up his life. Ask him if he thinks his wife would want to see him die on the street. Tell him that if he is willing to do this that you will ask the trustee for the money to pay and if it is refused then say you will go to court on his behalf to request funding and a new trustee. Tell him that if he is not willing to go then there is nothing you can do for him (do not offer to fight only for food money - you have to make it clear - you will fight for him to get money to go to a treatment center or you will not fight at all).

In my opinion, there is no justification for refusing the cost of a treatment center that can take him immediately - even if it drains most of his trust since he is likely to die without major intervention (50K would be required for a stay at Edgewood). If the trustee refuses then this would be the basis for the court case to remove the trustee since he is clearly not managing the trust in the best interest of the beneficiary. You will need the advice of a lawyer to help with these arguments.

Thanks for your suggestions, TimG, all valid for some circumstances I'm sure.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "intervene" as I didn't mean to imply that kind of addiction 'intervention' as we're barely acquaintances.

We can point him to an advocate and a lawyer to encourage him to begin the process though. I trust that any court process would include consideration of rehab.

How you might feel is the best way to exert control over him and the situation may not correspond to his legal rights.

I would not think it's wise for me to take the approach you outlined above, as I wouldn't be comfortable about my right to do so or possible personal liability or backlash from the family.

If a judge wants to make rehab a condition for release of some of his funds, I'm all in favour. However, I am also confident that a judge recognizes that you can't legally cut a person off from paying for his own food and shelter with his own money just because he's an alcoholic who drinks.

I just want to see the decisions shifted to the court.

[TimG]

I just want to see the decisions shifted to the court.

But who is going to do that?

[jacee]

But who is going to do that?

Only he himself can legally do so, of course.

Without going into too much detail ... a community advocate and legal assistance appear possible.

[TimG]

Only he himself can legally do so, of course.

He is not going to do it unless someone urges him to do it. Whoever does that is in a position to also convince him that he needs to go into rehab to get his money back.

a community advocate and legal assistance appear possible.

And that person should also know that asking for money for rehab is a better argument than asking for money for food and shelter.

[jacee]

He is not going to do it unless someone urges him to do it. Whoever does that is in a position to also convince him that he needs to go into rehab to get his money back.

And that person should also know that asking for money for rehab is a better argument than asking for money for food and shelter.

When he can think past being hungry and cold today ... obviously rehab can be proposed ... but until a court grants him some form of access to his money for that purpose ... I don't control that, nor can you.

[jacee]

Just an update ... Court declared him competent to handle his own money, and judge labelled family actions "greed" and other harsh words.

He's taking control, looking much healthier, and can now afford decent rehab if that's his choice. And of course, it has to be his own choice.

As I suspected, you cannot deny an addict access to his own money for food and shelter, even if you do con a drunk into signing over power of attorney.

It's a criminal offense for a trustee to fail to provide "necessaries", with penalties up to 14 years in prison, not pursued in this case.

And I rest my case.

We did the right thing.

[Topaz]

In my cousins case, he does have access to his money, every month he get a certain about of money paid out by the Trust Company, so he does have accesst to it but he can't touch the principle, just the interest and that's enough to pay his rent, food, smokes and gas for his car. He can't work, and he can't get welfare or disability but he really doesn't need it. Also, he never went to rehab, for his drinking, he just stopped drinking and as most former alcohols, he sees his doctor every week because he doesn't want to die. He goes through panic attacks if he gets an ache or pain somewhere.

[TimG]

As I suspected, you cannot deny an addict access to his own money for food and shelter, even if you do con a drunk into signing over power of attorney.

It really depends on the facts of the case. From your description of the judgement it sounds like there was considerable doubt in this case about whether the trustee was acting in the best interests of the trust beneficiary so the judge vacated the trust. In other cases, the facts could be different and the judgement could have gone another way. I know of cases where alcoholics have not been able to regain control of their trust because there was no doubt that the trustee cared about the welfare of the alcoholic.

[jacee]

It really depends on the facts of the case. From your description of the judgement it sounds like there was considerable doubt in this case about whether the trustee was acting in the best interests of the trust beneficiary so the judge vacated the trust. In other cases, the facts could be different and the judgement could have gone another way. I know of cases where alcoholics have not been able to regain control of their trust because there was no doubt that the trustee cared about the welfare of the alcoholic.

As I said repeatedly, none of his own funds were provided for food or shelter: NONE. The man was living on the street, begging for food, despite having substantial money. That was the issue I addressed throughout this thread.

Edited February 8, 2013 by jacee

[guyser]

Well Jacee, I guess it is time to man up and offer an apology.

Sorry for being harsh earlier in this thread.

Glad it all worked out and wish the best for your friend.