Why is it I see a reoccurring theme on this forum. It seems like most, if not all of the caregivers in here do not have the POA, and/or are not the executor of the estate of the person they are caring for.
It is always a sister/brother/daughter/son living in a different state that is the executor of mom/dad's estate and they have the POA , yet do not see nor will provide any care for the person they have legal reasonability for.
I guess my question is, how does something like that happen? And why would the care giver put up with an arrangement like that?
How did it happen? Because the POA was created in 2004 as part of sensible routine planning, quite correctly, long before there was any sign of my mother's ever losing capacity, then forgotten about until she had had two small strokes and went on to a vascular dementia diagnosis. I wasn't aware of its existence. There was no reason why I should have been. And when my mother and I set up in the same household, she was completely independent (more or less) - the issue of capacity wasn't even on the horizon.
Why would the caregiver put up with the arrangement? Speaking for myself, there are several reasons:
1. My mother signed a document to the effect that she wished my brother and sister to have Power of Attorney. She didn't appoint me, in other words; she wanted them to act for her. If she would now feel safer with me making the decisions - well, sorry, she should have thought of that before.
2. So what are my options? Leave in a huff? Refuse to lift a finger as caregiver on the grounds that I haven't got POA? Try to force my brother and sister to resign their joint POA and apply for Guardianship?
3. Following on from 2, what grounds would I have for doing that? It is - it just IS - plainly in my mother's best interests for her financial affairs to be managed by more than one person because it reduces the opportunity for abuse. So while it is inconvenient, and because of family dynamics frequently stressful and disagreeable, for me to be thrown in to constant low-level conflict with family members, it is more important that my mother is protected. ***I*** might know that I wouldn't play fast and loose with my mother's money. She might know that, too. My sister has no such confidence in me (she's just like that),, and besides how do I prove a negative to everyone else? Our arrangement provides for an abundance of caution. It is also a gigantic pain in the proverbial - but that's my problem, not my mother's.
On the subject of protection, I have come to the view that it would be greatly preferable for POA not to be held by anyone with a vested interest in the person's estate - by his or her children or other heirs, that is. But there is an existing protection, in the hands of the person awarding POA: be careful who you pick.
My mother wasn't careful; mainly because she did not seriously envisage the POA ever being anything but hypothetical and therefore did not think it through. I don't mean that my brother and sister are acting incorrectly, certainly not. But suppose I announced I'd had enough and handed her over. They would deal kindly and efficiently with her, and whisk her into a nursing home so fast her feet wouldn't touch the ground. (I suspect she would then die quite quickly, out of lethal passive aggression if nothing else). The reason I don't do that is that I have chosen to provide her with the option of living in her own home, as long as that is what she wants. I plan to see it through - but who knows the future?
I don't mind not having the POA for finance. My brother and I have no problems with each other. If I told him we needed to do something, he would work with me. I don't worry about that.
I agree that there is still "a lot of it about." A friend of mine spits tacks regularly because both of her brothers hold POA, and the older is executor, while she's been excluded - and she's not awarding prizes to anyone who guesses why.