give me your suggestions/ideas, I am too emotionally involved

[DawnM]

Trying to figure out how to help.

Bullet Point facts:

• person can no longer work due to a disability
• person gets disability checks
• person gets less than $100 in food stamps
• check might cover everything she needs IF she would make some big changes she hasn't been able to make (get rid of car she can't drive but hopes to drive again, get rid of 4 pets that cost $$ to feed, stop supporting the two grown kids who live with her and eat her food and use her stuff and don't contribute much but do help her with what she needs to get around, etc...)
• person has made some very bad financial decisions before the disability and it is coming back to bite them
• Most of the family is angry that she won't make changes so they no longer help in any way, although 2 siblings send groceries every now and then, even though they know it is shared 
• This person is almost like a sibling to me and we are close

I have

• gone back and forth with the "enabling" feeling, am I helping or hurting?
• I too think she should at least get rid of the pets as they are at least $100/mo to feed and care for
• I have sent her amazon items in the past (phone charger she needed, etc....) and I have sent her non-perishable groceries (I don't live close by) on several occasions.  And I have given her money.
• I sent her a Walmart gift card once because it was easy to send via email.   I found out she gave it to her grown child, or the grown child took it, not sure, so I won't be doing that again.

So

• Am I enabling?
• what would you suggest?

 

[JustEm]

yes, you are enabling..  Does she ask for help or do you offer it? If you offer it without her asking, just stop.  If she is asking for help then you have to decide if you are ok with enabling her or not.  I personally would not be enabling someone like that and when they asked me for help I'd tell them I can only offer a listening ear and advice but no money or food.  I'd ask if she wants advice and then I'd be honest with the changes she can make.

[Carrie12345]

4 minutes ago, DawnM said:

 

• Most of the family is angry that she won't make changes so they no longer help in any way, although 2 siblings send groceries every now and then, even though they know it is shared

So

• Am I enabling?
• what would you suggest?

The rest of the family has the right idea, imo.

Now, if you happen to be so wealthy that you have plenty of money to burn, do whatever floats your boat.  But, having provided more than my share of “help” to no positive outcome... It’s a never ending pit. Do you want to be in it or out of it?

[TheReader]

I have an actual sibling in that situation, and the times I've broken my self-imposed rule of not helping with finances, I've regretted it. 

I have a parent in similar circumstances and, same thing. 

I learned that I couldn't even set guidelines like "I'll help with medical things but nothing else" because then they'd specifically spend money on xyz (that they didn't need) and neglect the medical thing, knowing I'd cover that.  (or, for ex, when it was my sibling and her kids were little; we started off with a rule that if it was something for the kids/food, diapers, medicine, etc, we'd cover that.....but then she was getting tattoos and not buying diapers and formula, so....nope, sorry).

Both people in my life initially got angry with me when I stopped helping bail them out, both tested the limits the next time they were in tough situations, both ended up accepting the new limits and the relationships went back to at least as good as they were before (well, my sister and I are currently in some rift I'm not sure of the origins of, but that's another thing all together...).  Although, neither are stellar relationships in the first place, so....? 

But, all that to say -- yes, it's enabling. Only you (and your husband/SO, if you have joint accounts) can decide whether that's a valid price for the relationship with this person, or not. 

[Katy]

Yes, it’s not only enabling, it’s preventing the adults from stepping up, getting a job, and helping.  Stop. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I have found it helpful to ask myself two questions in difficult situations like that.

These are, What would happen in a normal family?  And, What do I need to do my own self to feel like a moral person?

I always find that those help me sidestep all the noise and get down to the bedrock of what is going on, and figure out what to do.

I hope that they are helpful to you.  Hugs, this is very hard.  

 

[DawnM]

51 minutes ago, Katy said:

Yes, it’s not only enabling, it’s preventing the adults from stepping up, getting a job, and helping.  Stop. 

One does have a job, a decent job actually, and does help as much as she can, but she often slacks off and spends unnecessarily too.   and she just started the job a couple of months ago, so she is still getting established.   

[JumpyTheFrog]

It sounds like your intended help has made it easier for her to enable her own adult kids.

Based on what I've heard, it would be less stressful to drive down the highway and toss $20 bills out the window than to own a boat. Your situation sounds worse than owning a boat.

[SKL]

It is enabling if it's more than an occasional gift.  If it is getting worse rather than better.

I have totally been there, and sometimes I still am.  Why, not 24 hours have passed since I was asked for - and gave - what most would consider a significant amount of money.  😞

I empathize.

[Hen]

yes, it's enabling.  Her adult children are in the position to step up and help care for their mom, including helping her to make the hard decisions she needs to make.  

 

[kbutton]

I think you could potentially do some things with/for her that are just "friend" things if you keep it unpredictable and make it something you do together. Things like taking her along if you have to go somewhere that is someplace that would meet a need for her (errands, etc.). On another thread, someone mentioned food pantries for pets--if you had something like that around, maybe you could take her for her first visit. You could have her over for dinner and provide a ride both ways. 

It sounds like she's having difficulty adjusting (hanging onto the car), is easily steamrolled, or wants a role (generous mom, pay back the kids for rides, etc.) that is no longer how it will be. That doesn't mean that she might not move on eventually--everyone is different about dealing with change.

 

[DawnM]

3 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I think you could potentially do some things with/for her that are just "friend" things if you keep it unpredictable and make it something you do together. Things like taking her along if you have to go somewhere that is someplace that would meet a need for her (errands, etc.). On another thread, someone mentioned food pantries for pets--if you had something like that around, maybe you could take her for her first visit. You could have her over for dinner and provide a ride both ways. 

It sounds like she's having difficulty adjusting (hanging onto the car), is easily steamrolled, or wants a role (generous mom, pay back the kids for rides, etc.) that is no longer how it will be. That doesn't mean that she might not move on eventually--everyone is different about dealing with change.

 

She lives too far for me to do those things for her, but yeah, she is a bit of a doormat.

[kbutton]

1 minute ago, DawnM said:

She lives too far for me to do those things for her, but yeah, she is a bit of a doormat.

That must make it harder to watch happen since you can't do other supportive things as easily. Rats.

[prairiewindmomma]

I'm going to offer a different perspective, just because no one else has.

Due to her disability, she cannot work. That in and of itself is isolating. Her animals provide loving support for her. Her children help where they can, but they were raised in a non-healthy set of circumstances.  They do provide rides and support to her and if they weren't in the picture, she would be worse off. As thanks for what they do for her, she provides a roof over their head and helps with what she can. Her car is symbolic of her freedom. She doesn't drive right now, but she knows she will never be able to afford another car again, and so she's reluctant to get rid of one of the few assets she still has.

Does that narrative make anyone feel differently?

[JustEm]

4 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I'm going to offer a different perspective, just because no one else has.

Due to her disability, she cannot work. That in and of itself is isolating. Her animals provide loving support for her. Her children help where they can, but they were raised in a non-healthy set of circumstances.  They do provide rides and support to her and if they weren't in the picture, she would be worse off. As thanks for what they do for her, she provides a roof over their head and helps with what she can. Her car is symbolic of her freedom. She doesn't drive right now, but she knows she will never be able to afford another car again, and so she's reluctant to get rid of one of the few assets she still has.

Does that narrative make anyone feel differently?

Not really because it sounds like she has continually made bad financial decisions prior to the disability issue. And it has seemingly been an issue long enough for other family members to decide to be done helping so it isn't like it is a brand new issue.

At a certain point in time people have to put their pride and wants aside and do the hard things that need to happen in order for them to cover their needs.

[Innisfree]

I feel kinda like @prairiewindmomma, especially about the animals. I can't imagine getting rid of beloved pets because I had fallen on hard times. 

Perhaps she was never in a position to responsibly acquire pets. Still, getting rid of them, probably not ever knowing what happened to them, would be genuinely heartbreaking to many. When she's already in a deeply stressful situation, I can understand resisting that.

Some areas have low-cost vet clinics for people in need. One I'm familiar with is associated with a humane society. Any chance something like that is within reach, at least for yearly care? A long day trip once a year to look after the animals could save her a great deal of money.

[DawnM]

Just now, Innisfree said:

I feel kinda like @prairiewindmomma, especially about the animals. I can't imagine getting rid of beloved pets because I had fallen on hard times. 

Perhaps she was never in a position to responsibly acquire pets. Still, getting rid of them, probably not ever knowing what happened to them, would be genuinely heartbreaking to many. When she's already in a deeply stressful situation, I can understand resisting that.

Some areas have low-cost vet clinics for people in need. One I'm familiar with is associated with a humane society. Any chance something like that is within reach, at least for yearly care? A long day trip once a year to look after the animals could save her a great deal of money.

would it make a difference if I told you she acquired the 2 dogs long after she became disabled?   like, they are only a few months old now.   

[Innisfree]

3 minutes ago, DawnM said:

would it make a difference if I told you she acquired the 2 dogs long after she became disabled?   like, they are only a few months old now.   

That's clearly a bad choice. If they're still young puppies, then that does change things a bit. Is she physically able to meet their needs? 

[Selkie]

5 minutes ago, Innisfree said:

I feel kinda like @prairiewindmomma, especially about the animals. I can't imagine getting rid of beloved pets because I had fallen on hard times. 

Perhaps she was never in a position to responsibly acquire pets. Still, getting rid of them, probably not ever knowing what happened to them, would be genuinely heartbreaking to many. When she's already in a deeply stressful situation, I can understand resisting that.

Some areas have low-cost vet clinics for people in need. One I'm familiar with is associated with a humane society. Any chance something like that is within reach, at least for yearly care? A long day trip once a year to look after the animals could save her a great deal of money.

The shelters in our area have pet food pantries for low income people and those going through hard times. Maybe there is one of those where she lives.

[footballmom]

I really like prairiewindmomma’s perspective on this.  I think some deciding factors for me would be if this person made indulgent choices  because they were counting on my help, how often help was needed and what their perception / reception of my help was.  I think there is a fine line between being a blessing and being an enabler.   

[footballmom]

If her children are unkind to her, having the unconditional love of a fur baby may meet a human need for her.  Logically, I can see that this may not be a great situation for the dogs if she can’t meet their food needs responsibly or care needs.  Heck, we got a puppy less than two years ago and when my teens start with some attitude on bad days, I’m ready to run away with just me and the dog.  Not making light of this, just typing through some of the needs the dogs are meeting for her. 

[DawnM]

9 minutes ago, Innisfree said:

That's clearly a bad choice. If they're still young puppies, then that does change things a bit. Is she physically able to meet their needs? 

Nope, her kids are doing most of that.

[DawnM]

1 minute ago, footballmom said:

If her children are unkind to her, having the unconditional love of a fur baby may meet a human need for her.  Logically, I can see that this may not be a great situation for the dogs if she can’t meet their food needs responsibly or care needs.  Heck, we got a puppy less than two years ago and when my teens start with some attitude on bad days, I’m ready to run away with just me and the dog.  Not making light of this, just typing through some of the needs the dogs are meeting for her. 

They are not unkind, they just have their own set of issues.

[DawnM]

9 minutes ago, Selkie said:

The shelters in our area have pet food pantries for low income people and those going through hard times. Maybe there is one of those where she lives.

Getting there could be an issue.   She can't even get to the people food pantries.   

[Frances]

9 minutes ago, DawnM said:

Getting there could be an issue.   She can't even get to the people food pantries.   

Does she qualify for meals on wheels? Sometimes they deliver pet food.

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't think it's necessarily bad to help her.  There, I said it.

I think it's really important not to do it to the extent of feeling very taken advantage of, and to be mindful of that possibility, but in general, compassion and generosity are Christ-like, and I would rather be hurt by being too generous than too stingy.  I would be very careful not to establish such an expectation of me that I would be considered responsible for them, like the missing mother figure or whatever.  

And I would keep my own expectations of the situation nil to nonexistent.  I would not expect my help to fix it.  I would not expect it to improve and be majorly disappointed if it didn't.  I wouldn't give conditionally; rather, I would give what I could feel good about giving unconditionally and stop right there.  

This lady is literally disabled.  She can't even get her own food.  In another time, someone from her extended family would take her in, because there would be time and space for that.  That's not reasonable now, so her kids live there.  Yes, they have issues, and this is not a fully healthy situation but it's a bizarrely functional one from the sound of it.  

And yes, they should get rid of the dogs.  Sigh.  I have run across so many homeless women who could get housing if they would just give up their dog or dogs, and it's something I truly cannot relate to but I've seen it enough to know that it's a thing and very intractable, too.  My guess is that they make them feel a bit more loved and protected and also much more generous and protective, all of which are valid human needs.  But in this case they do need to go and I wouldn't have any patience with that.  With the rest, though, I pretty much would.

I'd think about what help I could give without feeling any inward strings, and give that.  I'd make it kind of random so that it wasn't routine or taken for granted.  And I'd release any expectation that it would make things have an upward trajectory.  That's what I would do.  But that might not be right for you, and that's what you have to figure out.  There are many righteous options here.  Pick the one that seems best to YOU.

 

[JustEm]

3 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I don't think it's necessarily bad to help her.  There, I said it.

I think it's really important not to do it to the extent of feeling very taken advantage of, and to be mindful of that possibility, but in general, compassion and generosity are Christ-like, and I would rather be hurt by being too generous than too stingy.  I would be very careful not to establish such an expectation of me that I would be considered responsible for them, like the missing mother figure or whatever.  

And I would keep my own expectations of the situation nil to nonexistent.  I would not expect my help to fix it.  I would not expect it to improve and be majorly disappointed if it didn't.  I wouldn't give conditionally; rather, I would give what I could feel good about giving unconditionally and stop right there.  

This lady is literally disabled.  She can't even get her own food.  In another time, someone from her extended family would take her in, because there would be time and space for that.  That's not reasonable now, so her kids live there.  Yes, they have issues, and this is not a fully healthy situation but it's a bizarrely functional one from the sound of it.  

And yes, they should get rid of the dogs.  Sigh.  I have run across so many homeless women who could get housing if they would just give up their dog or dogs, and it's something I truly cannot relate to but I've seen it enough to know that it's a thing and very intractable, too.  My guess is that they make them feel a bit more loved and protected and also much more generous and protective, all of which are valid human needs.  But in this case they do need to go and I wouldn't have any patience with that.  With the rest, though, I pretty much would.

I'd think about what help I could give without feeling any inward strings, and give that.  I'd make it kind of random so that it wasn't routine or taken for granted.  And I'd release any expectation that it would make things have an upward trajectory.  That's what I would do.  But that might not be right for you, and that's what you have to figure out.  There are many righteous options here.  Pick the one that seems best to YOU.

 

I would actually argue that the enabling of poor behavior like this for extended periods of time is not compassion because it inevitably extends the person's suffering instead of forcing them to do what they need to do to fix their own suffering

[Carol in Cal.]

2 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

I would actually argue that the enabling of poor behavior like this for extended periods of time is not compassion because it inevitably extends the person's suffering instead of forcing them to do what they need to do to fix their own suffering

I know that that is conventional wisdom but I've seen cases where it is just not true.  Sometimes conventional wisdom is too doctrinenaire.  We are talking about a disabled woman who is a family member here.  That's a bit of a special case.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Carol in Cal.

[prairiewindmomma]

1 hour ago, DawnM said:

would it make a difference if I told you she acquired the 2 dogs long after she became disabled?   like, they are only a few months old now.   

I don’t know, Dawn. After my time in legal aid, I saw a lot of dysfunctional families. My decision making doesn’t line up with theirs, but once I knew their stories and how they got to where they were…..there are a lot of things I just suspend judgment on these days.

People want to control other people’s decisions and they use money to do so. “She isn’t deserving of my money because she won’t do xyz. She got herself into this situation and therefore I have no responsibility to make sure she isn’t hungry or that she isn’t homeless.” I think that’s a dangerous line of thought. It’s parallels are, “She doesn’t (edit: deserve) healthcare because she won’t lose the weight” or other things.

Let’s assume she sells the car, gets rid of the pets, and makes her kids move out. What then? She’s still left disabled and in poverty. 

I personally think if you give, you should give freely. If you choose not to give, that’s ok too. But don’t give with strings, iykwim.

Edited November 6, 2021 by prairiewindmomma
Correction of word

[JustEm]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

I know that that is conventional wisdom but I've seen cases where it is just not true.  Sometimes conventional wisdom is too doctrinenaire.  We are talking about a disabled woman who is a family member here.  That's a bit of a special case.

Most disabilities do not prevent people from making good decisions that allow them to get themselves out of bad situations. Enabling them to live in a fantasy where they still need a car, need 4 animals, have their adult children live with them for free while they can't afford it is not compassion.  Taking her in and caring for her if she needed that would be compassionate but allowing her to live in a delusion is not. There are many ways to show compassion to a person like the OP describes but at a certain point if they continue down their destructive path it is no longer compassionate to help them continue their suffering

[Carol in Cal.]

3 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

Most disabilities do not prevent people from making good decisions that allow them to get themselves out of bad situations. Enabling them to live in a fantasy where they still need a car, need 4 animals, have their adult children live with them for free while they can't afford it is not compassion.  Taking her in and caring for her if she needed that would be compassionate but allowing her to live in a delusion is not. There are many ways to show compassion to a person like the OP describes but at a certain point if they continue down their destructive path it is no longer compassionate to help them continue their suffering

Maybe not, but are you sure you can identify that point?  I'm not personally confident that I can do so.

I know a man who impoverished himself and hurt his marriage by taking in his alcoholic son, wife, and children.  It was not great, and I did point that out, but also I had to acknowledge that I might have done the same thing, to give some normalcy to those kids.  

How many people do you know who jeopardize their retirement to send their children to a good college?  My own answer would be, tons.  I'm one of them actually.  It's not entirely logical but I did it with my eyes open and I'd probably do it again.

Financial stuff is not a simple matter of straight forward calculations.  I mean, it partly is, but partly is not. 

[sweet2ndchance]

17 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

Most disabilities do not prevent people from making good decisions that allow them to get themselves out of bad situations.

Most, if not all, disabilities DO have the increased risk of depression, especially chronic depression, which does have the ability to impair decision making skills.

Just as an example, it is easy to say that logically she doesn't need 4 dogs from the outside looking in. And it's not a false statement at all. But from her perspective, those dogs may be what keeps her getting up each day, even if she cannot provide all the care for them, when the depression of not being "enough" in society's eyes because of her disability starts to get to her.

My husband cannot work and gets disability. I know first hand what being labeled as "disabled" can do to someone mentally. Even physical disabilities have mental health implications that can and do impact decision making.

I don't have much else to add to the conversation. In my opinion, if you feel like you are being taken advantage of, then if is time to cut back on the help you are giving. 

[JustEm]

15 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Maybe not, but are you sure you can identify that point?  I'm not personally confident that I can do so.

I know a man who impoverished himself and hurt his marriage by taking in his alcoholic son, wife, and children.  It was not great, and I did point that out, but also I had to acknowledge that I might have done the same thing, to give some normalcy to those kids.  

How many people do you know who jeopardize their retirement to send their children to a good college?  My own answer would be, tons.  I'm one of them actually.  It's not entirely logical but I did it with my eyes open and I'd probably do it again.

Financial stuff is not a simple matter of straight forward calculations.  I mean, it partly is, but partly is not. 

 

In the case described by the OP, I think personally for me the point I would decide that I am enabling them is when they are already struggling to survive and need help but make the decision to get 2 dogs they can't take care of or afford.  That is a person living a fantasy who is not willing to help themselves anymore.  They will accept help as it is offered but will not help themselves. To continue to help them is to be a part of their continued suffering.  

 

In regards to the man who help is son, that is a great thing he did and I hope that it help those children greatly.  I would likely do the same thing at least taking the children in. I'd take the adults in too if they were actively trying to better themselves and their situation, that goes back to not being a part of their continued suffering. 

I personally would not jeopardize my retirement for my children's education. I plan on helping them but not at the expense of my own future. I don't think that is a smart decision unless you are positive those children will return the favor when you need them

 

 

[Carrie12345]

34 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

41 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

Maybe not, but are you sure you can identify that point?  I'm not personally confident that I can do s

It will absolutely be up to each individual involved to identify in each case. I’m willing to bet the majority of us don’t identify that point until it’s way back in our rear view.

It is absolutely true that not everyone is a “lost cause”. I’m always willing to help my sibling who makes weird choices (IMO) but truly tries her best and no one’s in harm’s way.   If they were, I’d help more, she’d make good use of it, and get back on her feet.

And then there are people who have a dozen neglected pets seized by the authorities, their houses condemned, their children removed after being kicked out of shelters, and lawsuits for scamming.

Kindness and goodwill is always the right starting point.  But one can only sacrifice so much when it’s no longer benefiting anyone.

 

 

[JustEm]

1 minute ago, sweet2ndchance said:

Most, if not all, disabilities DO have the increased risk of depression, especially chronic depression, which does have the ability to impair decision making skills.

Just as an example, it is easy to say that logically she doesn't need 4 dogs from the outside looking in. And it's not a false statement at all. But from her perspective, those dogs may be what keeps her getting up each day, even if she cannot provide all the care for them, when the depression of not being "enough" in society's eyes because of her disability starts to get to her.

My husband cannot work and gets disability. I know first hand what being labeled as "disabled" can do to someone mentally. Even physical disabilities have mental health implications that can and do impact decision making.

I don't have much else to add to the conversation. In my opinion, if you feel like you are being taken advantage of, then if is time to cut back on the help you are giving. 

Yes, I understand the depression aspect and did not mean to downplay that because I know all too well how debilitating depression can be. If that is the case with this person the compassionate thing to do is help her get the mental health help she needs.  For me, I was incapable of making my own phone calls to make appointments so I had 2 people help me do that. I would even be willing to say it wouldn't be enabling to offer to pay for her mental health appointments even while she continued making bad decisions.  

My previous statement was from the perspective that there have been multiple people in this person's life who have tried to help her out of a bad situation and she has not accepted the actual type of help she needs.  Because if people are starting to stop helping her then this has been going on for a long time and I imagined someone if not multiple people suggested she may need mental health help to her.

[Tanaqui]

Listen, I don't know how much experience you all have with disability, welfare, and SNAP - but there is NO situation where getting rid of the pets or the car is going to magically fix her budget. Those programs are not designed to help people pull themselves out of poverty. Indeed, there are many little traps which prevent people receiving those monies from building assets.

DawnM, decide what you're willing to do to help and then do that. Do NOT send her cash money or gift cards. If you want to help her with food or pet food, get some things on a regular delivery schedule to be sent to her house. If you want to help her with bills, send the check directly to the gas or the electric or the mortgage companies.

Don't worry about the fact that her "family is angry" that she won't just do what they want, or that she made bad financial decisions in the past. Make your decision solely on "What can I afford?" and "What am I willing to do for this friend?" and leave her poor decision making and her family out of it.

[Harriet Vane]

This is a tough situation, for sure. The line between helping and enabling can be hard to see, though I tend to think erring on the side of compassion is the better choice.

The others have given solid points to think about. I will add this--someone who has lived with an impulsive or unwise mindset for decades will not magically learn their lesson and suddenly start making awesome, mature decisions. So it is true that pouring your largesse into that gaping black hole can be enabling, but it's also true that some people will simply never be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They do not have the capacity, and in such cases often we choose to give a cushion. 

If you choose to give, do so knowing you will never be paid back. This person's circumstances look really tough, so I would lean towards helping her but doing so in a way that appears random and unscheduled to her. I would also try to make my help be directly to material needs such as paying a gas bill or sending a bag of pet food from time to time.

As for the young adults in this person's life, I would likely try to offer resources for jobs or training and not fuss about everyone living in the family compound. My guess is that what makes life worth living for the disabled person is the presence of the people she loves (including pets). As long as no one is operating a meth lab out of the house, those emotional bonds, dysfunctional though they may be, may be worth preserving. 

Just some thoughts to mull--your perspective may differ based on your intimate knowledge of the people and situation.

 

[Harriet Vane]

I will add some personal experience:

I have a couple people in my life that I choose to help. One has been alienating people and making rotten decisions for decades, but this person is closely tied to me and I cannot bear for this person to suffer hunger or homelessness. We know this person's difficulties were shaped by real trauma, yet we also think this person has the ability to learn and to grow but chooses not to. We are generous with birthday and Christmas gifts and we put up with some garbage in order to not alienate the kids, who I love and who need supportive people to affirm them as they launch into the world. 

There was one person I helped far too much (totally enabling) and had to stop when I learned the true depths of this person's dishonesty and manipulation. YET--this person still has a low IQ and no family and extreme poverty. This person was born with physical challenges and was severely traumatized for many years by abuse--those things are not this person's fault. I cannot see my way to being friends again, yet this person's material needs are significant and this person will never, ever be able to rise above their circumstances. I wrestle with what to do with this person quite a bit--I will probably start sending some help anonymously at some point but not engage in a friendship which will only be painful for me and very tricky to navigate.

There are a couple young adults in my life who are struggling and who make poor choices sometimes in terms of partying. Yet they are young, trying hard to launch, largely unsupported, and victims of genuine dysfunction and in some cases, abuse. We have chosen to simply send the message over and over that they are loved and they have talents. We are choosing to help with some material needs from time to time because it's almost impossible to live on minimum wage. We are encouraging further education or training to access job opportunities that will pay more. The jury is out on these dear ones--our perspective and our willingness to help may change over time. But for right now, a little cushion may help them launch, and we believe they have the capacity to succeed. 

[katilac]

It sounds like a very complicated situation. The grown kids getting her where she needs to go is actually quite a big deal, so I wouldn't be quick to think she shouldn't let them live there. Their mere presence and company is probably a pretty big deal to someone who can't get around easily. As far as them not helping much beyond that - says who? Does the mom herself say it? If it's other people, they really can't know, even if they're pretty close by (kind of like no one else really knows what's going on in a marriage). 

From the little you've said, it doesn't strike me that you're giving her enough to really consider it enabling her. If you enjoy sending her something occasionally, if her pleasure gives you pleasure, I would by all means continue. I wouldn't never help a sibling or cousin because they make what I consider poor financial decisions. I don't regard it as my responsibility to help in a non-emergency situation, but, if I'm inclined to help, I help either way. I mean, it's not usually the people who have been making fantastic financial decisions their whole lives who need help, y'know? 

I do have a couple of familial black holes that I throw money into occasionally, lol, just as I occasionally throw some money at people living on the streets, even though it's not the most efficient or practical way to help. It's a way to make them happy in the moment, a way to show they are seen, a way to show someone cares. Some people are never going to be good with money. They aren't going to suddenly make all the right decisions because things get even harder. Things have already gotten harder, substantially so, and if going on disability didn't change her choices, I doubt you never helping her will. 

 Again, I do not at all think you are obligated to help her, but I don't think you're harming her or enabling her by doing so, unless you are sending her a substantial monthly check. 

2 hours ago, hjffkj said:

I would actually argue that the enabling of poor behavior like this for extended periods of time is not compassion because it inevitably extends the person's suffering instead of forcing them to do what they need to do to fix their own suffering

She's on disability. Money is always going to be tight. She's never been good with money, she's not likely to develop the ability now. I don't think this is anything like, say, giving money or luxuries to a young adult who hasn't quite accepted that they need to work for a living. I don't think her level of suffering is going to improve substantially by getting rid of her car or her pets, and I think it might increase substantially if she lives alone. 

44 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Listen, I don't know how much experience you all have with disability, welfare, and SNAP - but there is NO situation where getting rid of the pets or the car is going to magically fix her budget. Those programs are not designed to help people pull themselves out of poverty. Indeed, there are many little traps which prevent people receiving those monies from building assets.

So much this. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

If this is the same family member that you've mentioned over the past couple of years, then yes it's enabling.  And even if it weren't, you can't make decisions for another adult who is of (legally) sound mind, even if she's not of sound body, so there is absolutely nothing you can do about her pet situation. 

[DawnM]

12 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

If this is the same family member that you've mentioned over the past couple of years, then yes it's enabling.  And even if it weren't, you can't make decisions for another adult who is of (legally) sound mind, even if she's not of sound body, so there is absolutely nothing you can do about her pet situation. 

No, it's not the same person.   

[DawnM]

2 hours ago, Frances said:

Does she qualify for meals on wheels? Sometimes they deliver pet food.

Hmmm.....I don't know, good question.

Her county says you have to be 60 or older.   She is younger.

Edited November 6, 2021 by DawnM

[gardenmom5]

You are enabling by sending her food/money/items - especially they are going to her children.  *A* pet, can be a good emotional support for a disabled person.  Multiple pets, not so much.   A car she can't drive - absolutely not.

 

It sounds like she needs counseling to have a healthier emotional dynamic with her children (even if it's just throwing them out - cutting their apron strings - so they have to support themselves.).   It can be hard for a parent to put their foot down to a child they have always enabled.  No matter the age of the child, or how much it hurts them to provide for them.

[MercyA]

This person can't work. There is nothing wrong with you helping her by continuing to give her food and helping meet other material needs. 

So, she's made bad decisions. Haven't we all? Not everyone has the same advantages in life, mental or situational or otherwise. 

Jesus didn't say "give to the worthy poor." He said whatever we do for the least of these we do for Him. Sure, He expects us to be wise. I wouldn't give cash. I wouldn't give to the point of harming those in your own family. But caring for this person is Biblical, in my view.

Her pets no doubt bring joy and meaning to her life, like her children do. I wouldn't suggest to her that she "get rid" of them. If she brings up getting more pets, I would discourage that. And it sounds like her children are helping in some ways and that is a good thing.

I admire you, Dawn. ❤️

[Carrie12345]

7 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

I wrestle with what to do with this person quite a bit--I will probably start sending some help anonymously at some point but not engage in a friendship which will only be painful for me and very tricky to navigate.

This is actually a really good suggestion.  
The cash (or equivalent) often isn’t the real issue. The weight of the entanglement that can come with it can be the much bigger burden.

[kiwik]

10 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I don’t know, Dawn. After my time in legal aid, I saw a lot of dysfunctional families. My decision making doesn’t line up with theirs, but once I knew their stories and how they got to where they were…..there are a lot of things I just suspend judgment on these days.

People want to control other people’s decisions and they use money to do so. “She isn’t deserving of my money because she won’t do xyz. She got herself into this situation and therefore I have no responsibility to make sure she isn’t hungry or that she isn’t homeless.” I think that’s a dangerous line of thought. It’s parallels are, “She doesn’t (edit: deserve) healthcare because she won’t lose the weight” or other things.

Let’s assume she sells the car, gets rid of the pets, and makes her kids move out. What then? She’s still left disabled and in poverty. 

I personally think if you give, you should give freely. If you choose not to give, that’s ok too. But don’t give with strings, iykwim.

Yes that doesn't sound like a win.  The two puppies could probably be rehomed easily to good homes though and she would still have two pets.  Do the adult kids have incomes? Because of they could pay their share of food and utilities having them there is probably not a bad thing.  If you can afford it does it matter of it is enabling or not? If you stop helping here will she magically get anything under control?

Edited November 6, 2021 by kiwik

[Scarlett]

13 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Listen, I don't know how much experience you all have with disability, welfare, and SNAP - but there is NO situation where getting rid of the pets or the car is going to magically fix her budget. Those programs are not designed to help people pull themselves out of poverty. Indeed, there are many little traps which prevent people receiving those monies from building assets.

DawnM, decide what you're willing to do to help and then do that. Do NOT send her cash money or gift cards. If you want to help her with food or pet food, get some things on a regular delivery schedule to be sent to her house. If you want to help her with bills, send the check directly to the gas or the electric or the mortgage companies.

Don't worry about the fact that her "family is angry" that she won't just do what they want, or that she made bad financial decisions in the past. Make your decision solely on "What can I afford?" and "What am I willing to do for this friend?" and leave her poor decision making and her family out of it.

I scrolled through a lot of the posts quickly and was just about to post my own thoughts, but this is what jumped out at me and it sums things up nicely.  

[Tap]

I have lived this for years with my mom. Including the two people who live with her who don't contribute. 

My mom's perspective, is that they do somethings around the house that she can't do. So, while they don't contribute financially, they do help her some. (mow the grass, do minor chores etc). The biggest thing....they keep her company. She doesn't always enjoy dealing with them (lots of drama) but she would rather have that, than be alone. My mom's closest cousin slipped in the bathroom and got wedged between the shower and stool. She laid there for 3 days before she was found. She was alive and not physically injured, but was just stuck. That terrified my mom because my mom and her talked every day, and when my mom didn't hear from her, she just assumed she went to her daughter's house for a visit and forgot to tell my mom. 😞  My mom also knows that they would likely be homeless if they didn't live with her. They both have limitations that make finding work unlikely. One had a stroke and is partially paralyzed (but not enough to be on disability) and the other has a legal conviction that makes getting work very hard. 

My perspective, is that they take advantage of her. My mom could pay someone to mow for less than it costs her to have someone live with her. My mom lives on Social Security and has zero savings. I really hate the drama they cause, but she is the one who lives with it. If they had a place to go, I think she would have kicked them out years ago, but she really feels they will be homeless.. My sisters who are closest to my mom and I agree, that mom should sell her 2700sqft, 3 story, 100 year old, maintenance-heavy house and get something smaller that includes home maintenance (condo or similar). But she refuses and the house is falling in disrepair. It is getting dangerous for her to live there, but she won't sell. (part of her ceiling fell in and pipes no longer fit together correctly). I also had a circumstance when she asked me for money for a bill and she also asked my sister. We found out that we both gave her money and when I asked her about it, she said she gave the money left over to my other sister. 

One sister (I have 3 sisters and 1 brother) who enables my mom, pays for major repairs, a bill or two consistently and some medical expenses as well. She doesn't understand that she is keeping my mom in a worse position, by solving her immediate problems, but not solving the big issue, which is a house she can no longer afford. 

Now, what I do....I give her money for mother's day, birthday and Christmas presents. If she asks for money, I tell her I will send her her next present early. For instance, if she calls me and asks for money in November, I tell her "I'll send you your Christmas present early!" That way it puts a very clear limit on what I am willing to do. I don't increase the amount to match what she is asking for, I just send her what I normally send. I give her more that the other parents get (my xh parents when we were married etc), but she needs more, so I justify it that way. I have also paid individual bills directly, but no longer give her cash unless it is a gift, due to her giving it to someone else that one time. Or I will do something to offer another solution, like when her gas got shut off due to non-payment (large, historic, drafty houses are expensive to heat), I sent her a space heater for her bedroom, a new robe and a lap blanket. 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Tap

[SKL]

If only people like this would actually learn from being cut off... but that's not how I've seen it play out.

I'm with those who don't think getting rid of the pets is the answer.  Financially, it makes sense, but for a lot of people, getting rid of their pet feels like chopping off a limb.  And if we're honest, pet care is usually not super expensive.  There are also benefits to having pets, which we all know.

Acquiring a new pet in the middle of it all?  OK if you were petless and this is for therapeutic reasons.  I could see getting 2 so they could keep each other entertained.  Adding 2 on top of 2 that you already had sounds like a poor choice, but just because I wouldn't do it, that doesn't mean the person needs to have her pups taken away.  And yes, I've seen that play out many times, and it's frustrating.  It's just not as simple as "no more pets."

There's nothing like an enabling relationship to teach us that we can't control other adults.

[Me here wishing I didn't have decades of enabling baggage with no end in sight.]

[DawnM]

All good thoughts and ideas.   Thank you.