The Lillian Glasser case, as previously blogged about, raises some interesting issues not only about jurisdiction and fiduciary responsibility but a more personal question as to whether a child has the right to visit and provide input about the care of a parent.
Ms. Glasser’s case is not unusual. It has attracted media attention, no doubt, because it involves millions of dollars. But what about the more pedestrian case… The case where daughter moves mom out of state under the auspices of taking care of her (and quite probably, her money) and then refuses to allow other siblings to visit, or places limitations on the siblings? What if the daughter refuses to allow mom to make or receive phone calls? What if the daughter is the only person who knows about and makes decisions about mom’s health care? And finances?
It’s a tricky situation. In the absence of a formal guardianship, it is not settled whether there is a statutory right (at least in PA) for a child to have “visitation” rights with a parent. And in situations where there is perceived impropriety, the failure to have access to a parent can create additional mistrust. The child who is “out of the loop,” for example, may wonder what the caretaker sibling is hiding.
On a financial level, this is fairly easy to address. If the caretaker sibling is acting under a financial Power of Attorney, the law in Pennsylvania requires that the Agent (in this case, the caretaker sibling) keep adequate records of the Principal’s finances. If there is a perception that the caretaker sibling is inappropriately utilizing the parent’s funds, a child may petition the Court for a formal accounting of the caretaker sibling’s activities while acting as Agent.
Allegations of impropriety involving health care or mental status are more difficult to address. In almost every solution scenario, a petition to the Court for additional information may be in order.
I, like many of you, am watching the Glasser case with bated breath. Again, while the most significant legal aspects involve the notions of jurisdiction and fiduciary responsibility, what is at the heart of the case is the treatment of an elderly parent. And that human aspect is perhaps the most important of all. So, keep watching this space, we’ll report developments as they occur.
