At what age should a parent no longer support their children?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I have a friend, sort of like an adopted grandmother. We’ve served on a non-profit board together in the past. We have lunch periodically because I like her and all of my actual grandparents passed away years ago.

So at lunch yesterday, I ask her about her family, she confides to me that her deadbeat son, who is old enough to be my dad, is no longer living with her. Which I responded was great. I asked if he found a job finally, and she said no, that she was paying the rent on his apartment, just because she wasn’t comfortable with him being in her house any longer. Her son is an alcoholic and prescription drug abuser.

My friend is 95 and is on a fixed income, primarily social security. Her house is paid for, but there are taxes and maintenance. She is stretching her budget to take care of her 60 year old son. She has 6 daughters that try and help her out, but they don’t really have anything to do with their brother, the pariah of the family.

I told her she should just cut him off. He’s made his choices in life and should live with the consequences. She told me that while she’s afraid of him and doesn’t want him in her own house. She just can’t cut her own son off like that.

So what would you do if you were her? Is 60 years old, beyond the age at which a parent should continue to support their children?

2

That’s not support, that’s enabling, and there’s really no upper or lower age limit for that being a bad idea. As far as I’m concerned, 18 is about the limit for parents supporting their children, with an asterisk for post-secondary schooling, so yeah, 60 is right out for me. :slight_smile:

3

Of course, and it’s not like she’s really doing him any good. Maybe if he were down and out for a short while, but in this case it just prolongs his addictions.

4

I have to agree with Cat Whisperer - those circumstances are such a clear “no” that I’m not sure it has a lot of applicability to the more general question you ask in the subject line.

5

Those circumstances are a big “no”, but I don’t think it’s possible to have a hard and fast rule: if I were comfortably well off and it was no hardship to me, I could see helping to support a kid indefinitely if I agreed with their underlying reasons–I mean, if they wanted to play professional piano or were trapped in post-doc hell and were working hard toward their goals, or they were involved in some sort of important charity work, or something. On the other hand, if a parent is struggling financially and has other, younger children to support, I don’t see anything wrong with saying “it’s on you now” at high school graduation (though, of course, the kid needs to know such a situation was coming, and have been given advice on how to manage).

And I think there are an awful lot of people who, say, give their adult kids a couple hundred dollars more than a couple times a year but don’t think of that as helping to support them, but it is. Many others pay for their grandkids’ sports fees or winter coats or private schools or whatever, which is also helping to support them.

Most of these cases involve helping to support, not entirely supporting, but I think in the real world that is more often the situation parents face.

6

Your kids are your kids, always and forever, and as a parent it’s really hard to cut them off. It’s always going to feel like you’ve abandoned them.

My wife and I have always believed that our support requirements ended after our kids got their bachelors degrees (which both did without any major trauma). But when the youngest ran short of money about a year after graduation, there was no discussion as to what we should do - we gave her some extra cash to get her beyond her troubles.

Fortunately for all concerned, she got back on her feet and is doing just fine.

7

As is so often the case, Manda JO said what I believe, but did so much more eloquently and succinctly than I could have!

For us, the deal we always had with our kids was “if you’re going to school full-time and doing the best you can, we will support you”. We’re far from wealthy, but we’re quite fortunate to be doing well enough to make that offer!

8

I think it depends on what support and for what reasons. I don’t think I’d help a deadbeat keep being a deadbeat no matter what the age. But if I was 80 and my 50 year old kid wanted to change careers or otherwise follow a dream and I had the means and inclination to do so I would certainly help.

I think it also depends on how my helping the kid impacts my own life. For my minor children I will do without so that they can have more - for example not replacing the windows in the house so we can pay for summer camp. Or putting off new eyeglasses for me to afford eyeglasses for the kid. For an adult child I believe I’d only help up to the point where it isn’t my sacrifice for their comfort. I’m not eating cat food so my kid can pay his gambling debts.

Grandkids also changes the picture; I see it in my own family. My parents don’t really want to rescue my little sister any more from her silly mistakes, but with her daughter in the picture my sister keeps getting rescued just so her kid doesn’t suffer the consequences of having a dingbat for a mother. (Lest I sound bitter…I am.)

9

I thought you were going to ask about much younger offspring. I would say the top end would be after college if not sooner. An exception might be for something special like a medical student. You knew the answer before posting. A 60 year old is not a kid. After all these years of support, the “granny” takes some responsibility for having enabled and built up this dependency. She just wants to maintain peace until she dies. That’s worth something to her so let her go after voicing your opinion. She is not supporting all that with Social Security. The rest of the family that helps her is really doing the support for the son. Granny has socialized the expense of the deadbeat to the family. Soon granny will pass the gavel and sonny-boy will be on his own unless the rest of the family take over or granny leaves everything to the son because the others family members are so “normal.” That’s what sometimes happens and the son could end up better off than the rest.

10

She’s unlikely to change her stripes now, he didn’t get that way in a vacuum, after all.

If I was advising her, I’d tell her to sell her house, (which she can no longer maintain), move into assisted living, (not full care, seniors apartment, with services on site, like meals, hair salon, etc), then cut him off. She’ll have no need to fear him returning to her home, she can easily have him excluded from her new digs, and her assets will be safe from him. She could have a good life, free of him and fear. She’d be free of financial issues very likely, as well.

Is it likely? Not really. He’s now reached a point that’s frightening her, I get that, but if she’s stays where she is, she’ll always be at risk.

I would present it as taking charge of her future. She’s old, one day soon she’ll be infirm, if she doesn’t act now there will be literally nothing stopping him from moving into her home, while she’s in hospital, and doing as he pleases with her resources. The sisters are unlikely to step up and start a holy war, at such a time.

But I’d be very surprised if she listens, or, more accurately can hear, any of it. I mean think about it, the sisters,( 6 !), must have been working on her for years without any effect.

11

I never agree with just cutting someone off. It’s not fair to them. You can’t enable someone, never teach them how to survive and throw them out in the world. It’s like taking a house cat or house dog and letting them go free.

The son should be on his own, that is to be sure, but you give people options like, “OK, you have three months to find a job. Then after you get the job you need to pay me 1/2 of your take home pay for rent.”

And to be fair at 95 the mother probably is enabling the son as it’s nice to have someone around you at that age.

I tend to be rather tough as my father died when I was 11 and my mum died when I was 16 so I was on my own after that. And I made it, but I think back and see how different it could’ve been, had my mother and father not taught me well.

12

Hell, my dad can’t cut my half-brother off even after my dad had to take his kids in, even after he steals my dad’s painkillers out of his own house, even after EVERYTHING he’s done to us, and he’s, what, 50? Even though my dad knows it would be by far what’s best for the kids, even though every second they spend with him is bad for them, even though… don’t get me started.

13

The issue with enabling grown ups is the your kids are likely to outlive you.

There is definitely a difference between helping someone who is trying to help themselves or going through a rough patch (my parents gave my sister a lot of help while she sobered up, also in this category, providing support through school, letting someone move back home when they loose their job), and enabling someone who isn’t making an effort to change.

I have a friend who is very concerned about “what happens when her parents die” - her brother - now 40 - has never moved out of the house. He’s never bothered to hold a real job. She lives in terror that her kids will grow up and move out, and she’ll discover her brother is moving in.

14

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that 60 is probably pushing it.

15

Well, I can tell you that my brother will be very surprised when, and I don’t even want to think about it, my dad dies. Next month he is 80. My mother will not have it, and then I will not have it. His half of the estate? In trust to the kids. Trustee? Me. I keep thinking I should park my car in the garage just to make sure nothing ever goes wrong with the brakes.