The Basics of Filial Responsibility in California

What are the Filial Responsibility Laws?

Filial Responsibility Laws are designed to promote the general welfare of persons who are financially, physically, or mentally unable to provide for themselves. The statute’s intent is to transfer the burden of the financial support of an indigent parent onto the adult children. In fact, the statutory scheme is to impose a duty on adult children with the following provision: "The duty of support imposed by this part may be enforced by the state, any political subdivision thereof, or any public or private institution or organization which has furnished services to the parent . . ." The courts have routinely determined that these laws do not impose a private right of action because the laws provide that the duty to financially support an indigent parent is enforceable only by the State or the State’s agencies. The statute further provides that "the parent may not be imprisoned for nonpayment of any money ordered for support."
If you are a child of a parent who is now an elderly adult in need of care, and if your parent is no longer able to care for himself or herself financially , it may be difficult for your parent or your parent’s caregivers to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic needs for your parent’s care. The caregiver’s need for financial support is even more paramount if your parent does not qualify for, or if the caregiver is unwilling or unable to apply for, Medi-Cal assistance.
In such an event, the caregiver may sue you for support of your parent (once the caregiver has obtained a court order awarding them guardianship of your parent’s estate). Alternatively, the caregiver who has been awarded guardianship may cause a claim to be made against you and file a claim in your parent’s probate action (or guardianship action) after your parent’s death, any time within the period in which creditors can make claims against your parent’s estate. A defendant’s obligation to pay a filial support judgment does not cease upon the defendant’s death, but instead, is enforceable in the defendant’s estate. The statute’s meaning has been tested in the courts on various occasions.

History of Filial Laws in California

Filial responsibility laws in California have a long and complex history dating back to even before the founding of the state. These laws originate from the common law principle that family members are responsible for the costs of their relatives’ long-term care. Long before Social Security, MediCal, and hospital emergency treatment obligations, filial responsibility laws provided a fallback liability for caregivers and medical providers who were concerned about being paid for their services.
In 1851, California adopted its first statutory filial responsibility law imposing duty on certain relatives of adults. This law has remained basically unchanged in the California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 2514. Under this code, the legally responsible relatives of an "incompetent person" includes parents, adult children, and spouses. These relatives can be subject to an action or citation for willful failure to furnish necessaries of life.
In 1984, the California Legislature repealed the county-based indemnification provisions of the California Welfare and Institutions Code that allowed counties to sue family members for costs of providing care to indigent persons. The repeal was motivated by the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of Edgemont v. Barns. In that case, the Court held that such a right of indemnification was unconstitutional. Despite the repeal, however, the duty of support remains with the children regardless of whether an indemnification demand is made by a county or other caretaker.
There have been some efforts in California to reconsider filial responsibility laws. In 1983, the California Legislature created the Filial Responsibility Study Commission. In 1984, however, the Commission’s term of operation was extended only to December 1985. Furthermore, the Commission did not have its own staff, or the funds to permit it to become anything more than a study group whose conclusions would be not binding on the Legislature.
Filial responsibility laws are still very much in effect in California. In fact, there has been a recent resurgence of cases in which MediCal will seek reimbursement from the adult children of an aged relative. The amount sought is based upon the total expenditures paid by MediCal to pay for the nursing home care.
The historical context shows that filial responsibility laws in California have been around for a long time – and still have some teeth.

Current State of Filial Laws in California

At present, California has no active filial support laws in force. The last attempt by the California Assembly to enact such a statute was during the 2009-2010 legislative session, when Assembly Bill 2020 (Hernandez) was introduced. If passed, AB 2020 would have enacted Chapter 3 of Division 4 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to create extensive new requirements for parents and children that would have significantly impacted private and public adoption, guardianship, and trust transactions. However, the bill was not enacted into law.
California attempted but was unable to pass similar legislation in the 2009-2010 legislative session (S.B. 152), as well as in prior sessions (S.B. 1541 (2004) and S.B. 1416 (1999)). Though the current absence of a law addressing filial responsibility is significant, it is in some respect not surprising. With an aging population, awareness of the potential elder abuse and neglect of seniors and their intended sacrifice by their children has increased. The topic remains controversial and the debate surrounding potential laws to enact or reinstate filial support raises salient concerns about the relationship between parents and children, and the ability and right of a government to regulate this relationship.

Impact of Filial Laws on Families

Banks can and will chase you down for their balance if you co-signed a personal loan for your adult child. Hospitals can and will go after your land because your parents didn’t have insurance when they landed there. As debt and costs continue to rise- coupled with reduced support to offset those debts, hospitals are using personal assets of children to cover the difference.
Two things are clear, hospitals are pursuing patients for their parents’ medical debts and for California residents, those debts can be covered by filial responsibility laws.
AgeWave estimates that 1 in 3 San Diegans age 65 and older face some sort of financial abuse in their lifetime. Consumers are finding that nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospitals, and other businesses are looking to relatives to pay bills for outstanding debts that the patients are unable to pay.
Filial responsibility laws were put in place in the 1800s to encourage children to care for their parents in old age. While a handful of states had filial responsibility laws on the books in the years leading up to Great Recession, 2010 was the breakout year for these laws in California. In 2011 alone, 27 cases were pursued in five different counties across the state, in 2012, 46 cases were pursued in eight California counties.
Filial laws vary from state to state. They can be broadly interpreted to include additional family members outside of adult children, grandparents, aunts and uncles may be held responsible. Spouses, on the other hand can be liable in some states for "necessities", but are not liable for health care, and are not liable to the estate for debts.
In California, adult children are required to care for their parents and are financially responsible for medical expenses once their parents reach a point where they can no longer care for themselves. The catch is, what happens if the heirs do not have the financial ability to cover a parent’s outstanding debts?
The problem that often arises is that the burden to pay these debts typically falls disproportionately on women. In San Diego, the outflow of wealth in divorced households, most commonly women, is more than three times the inflow of wealth into households comprised of married couples. This trend leaves women with fewer resources as they age, and puts a burden of financial repayment on them when the state comes calling for payment on debts owed by their parents.
These laws are already being used to sue adult children for the cost of hospital stays and other healthcare coverage for their parents. In Mississippi, the Children’s Home Society of Mississippi recently sued 103 people to recover high medical costs to the Mississippi Medicaid program. Between 2002 and 2010, 21 states cited their filial obligation laws when obtaining a judgment against obligors for medical care of their low-income parents.
For adult children in California, the advice is to challenge and fight back as soon as you receive notification of an allegation that you owe a debt to a hospital for unpaid medical bills. This may mean filing a petition or motion with the court where the original suit was filed. Or it may mean pursuing an appeal if a judgment has already been entered in the trial court.
While California courts will not enforce a contract between two private parties, adult children are legally required to pay for their parents’ care in accordance with California’s infamous filial laws.

Exceptions to Filial Laws

In California, the fate of the family’s home is not at stake. Specifically, in California, courts have liberally construed the statutory phrase "indigent parent," which is to be liberally construed in favor of the adult child. Income levels of adult children and indigent parents will be taken into consideration; however, not income levels of other family member who do not reside with the indigent parent. If the adult child does not have sufficient income to support the parent or contribute to the cost of care, the adult child is not required to deplete his or her assets. Expenses incurred on behalf of the parent are limited to those which are medically necessary and reasonable. The adult child is also not required to personally care for the parent. However, if the adult child previously provided personal care, was employed, and has failed to provide for the necessaries of life to the parent and continues to have sufficient means, the legislature has determined there is a duty of familial support.
In 1994, the Court of Appeal of the State of California examined exceptions and limits to filial responsibilities in the case of Welf D. & Inst. Code § 2910; In re Marriage of Cuyler v. Superior Court, 29 CA. 4th 307 (2d Dist. 1994). In this case, Deborah Cuyler and her six siblings filed a writ of administrative mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief against the Department of Health Services (county welfare department) (Department), seeking to challenge the enforceability of the Family Code § 4400. They claimed Family Code § 4400 violated both the federal and state Constitutions by the interference of their right to travel, and that it violated the due process clause by promoting an unreasonable reliance on administrative agency determinations . They argued both federal and state law imposed a duty of filial support only to indigent parents, not parents expressly residing in a residential home, as in the case of their mother.
The court rejected both arguments, finding the County’s right of recovery in furtherance of its duty was permissible under the statute, and further that the responsibilities are to be strictly construed and confined to the following principles: the duty may not be enforced unless the neglect was within the control of the creditor, and unless the debtor and creditor had sufficient ability and means to maintain the parent. The court also found that the statute is not a violation of a parent’s right to travel and that a registered citizen would not be affected by the statute. If the parent enters the United States legally, he or she may receive public assistance in the five years of lawful residence in the United States. Further, the court found that the statutes do not implicate the privileges and immunities clause because it is not directed toward the cost of living or choice of residence, nor could the court find that it substantially burdens any citizen’s rights to travel. Lastly, the court found that if the constitutional right of due process is applicable, an adequate post-deprivation remedy exists: a suit in tort.
The court distinguished the duty of support as an obligation of mutual assistance among all members of the same family, and not a personal obligation of interspousal support. Filial responsibility laws are varied, and their interpretation and application by other states may vary from California. Therefore, it is recommended that advice of a professional who regularly practices in the area of elder law is sought when faced with liability under filial support and responsibility laws.

Seek Legal Guidance for Filial Law Questions

Filial responsibility laws can be complicated, and anyone who is either seeking reimbursement from a child of an elder or is being pursued for such reimbursement should seek legal advice. In California, there are a couple of different types of action that can be brought against a child for reimbursement; one is a civil lawsuit by the elder care facility, and an entirely different lawsuit might be filed by the state of California in its attempt to recover money that’s been spent caring for a senior citizen. Both lawsuits, in a way, can rely on the same proof, so regardless of which lawsuit is brought against you, it is very important to mount a vigorous defense and be represented by a qualified attorney who knows this area of the law inside and out. Even if a suit has already been brought against you, you do have some options available, primarily through the elder law estate attorneys. For example, if a Medicaid claim has been brought against you by the state of California, there are various exemptions that can be leveraged in order to reduce what’s owed, or to excuse the debt altogether. These exemptions or defenses should be examined closely, however, as some of them are very particular, and may not apply to your specific situation. For instance, the state of California is well-known for obscure, highly technical legal defenses against Medicaid claims, so do not make an assumption about which ones might apply unless you can see the actual pretext being used to launch the claim against you.

Future Considerations and Analysis

As more attention is given to the growing aging population in the United States, including in California, filial responsibility laws may return to the forefront as a potential source of revenue for states, or at least a potential mechanism to exert pressure on adult children. Any such developments in this regard should be closely monitored by families to determine whether holding children responsible for parents’ debts becomes more commonplace. The laws themselves may also change , and advocates or those with interest in the subject may want to ensure that the courts are open about how they handle any cases.
Another possible trend could involve changes in the relationship between the laws in California and those in other states. It is possible that California could join the several other states that have repealed their filial laws in the past few years. It is also possible that California could start to enforce filial laws from other states through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and their applicability to parents who might have become residents of another state.
Substantial changes also may happen at the national level regarding these laws. These laws may become more uniform because of arguments that they may interfere with federal programs like Medicare or Medicaid. As health care costs continue to increase and the aging population rises in the United States, the way that states deal with the financial burdens of those in long-term care will continue to be an important issue to monitor, including how filial laws fit into any such efforts.