Support from adult children to an older parent

It is the legal obligation of children and other adult descendants to contribute to the support of an older parent or ascendant who lacks resources to cover their basic needs, and the mechanism Act 168-2000 created to fix, modify, level and enforce it. It is not the same as child support, though the same agency administers it: the Programme for the Support of Older Adults is attached to the Child Support Administration and is governed by its same systems and regulations.

The Act describes the older adult requiring support as one whose income does not let them meet their basic needs and who, because of their health condition, level of schooling, lack of labour-market experience or other reasons, is incapacitated, unemployed or outside the job market, so that they generate no income for their support or what they generate is insufficient. Article 3 adds an important nuance: there are occasions where the older adult may have income but needs non-economic contributions from their descendants to keep a dignified quality of life. On the paying side, the obligation falls on adult descendants, and the Act expressly contemplates distributing it among several through nivelación.

• It is the obligation of older adults’ descendants to contribute through support payments to their maintenance (Article 4(A)).Verified against the official source
• The duty to maintain the older adult continues even where they have been placed in a care home or are under the custody of another person, or a public or private agency or institution (Article 4(A)).Verified against the official source
• The support petition may be filed by the alimentista themselves, their legal representative, a law-enforcement agent, a public or private agency or instrumentality, a guardian, a public official or any private person interested in the support (Article 4(B)).Verified against the official source
• An adult alimentante already providing support may ask the Court to order other obliged parties to provide it too, and in those cases nivelación is used to distribute the obligation equitably (Article 4(C)).Verified against the official source
• At the alimentante’s request, the prudence and reasonableness with which the alimentista managed their financial affairs over a period of no more than thirty-six (36) months, counted backwards from the request for services, may be considered (Article 4(E)).Verified against the official source
• Where it is shown the alimentante cannot provide economic assistance, they may be ordered to make non-economic contributions instead, such as household tasks, doing the shopping, accompanying them on personal errands or attending to their health needs (Article 4(F)(7)).Verified against the official source

• Evidence of the alimentista’s need: income, health condition and physical, mental and emotional needs, which are the first two factors of Article 4(F).
• Evidence of the alimentante’s capacity, including their other support obligations and, if applicable, their health status or incapacity (Article 4(F)).
• If invoked, evidence that the alimentante was a victim of abandonment or physical, emotional or sexual abuse by the alimentista, or that the latter breached a support order when the descendant was a minor (Article 4(F)(8)).

1. 1

   Step 1: Where the obligation comes from

   Article 3 declares it public policy to procure that adult descendants contribute, as far as their resources allow, to the support of older adults, under the provisions of Article 143 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico. And it adds something explaining why the Act exists: to achieve it, awareness must be raised not only among descendants of their obligation, but also among older adults of their right to claim support. Many older people do not know they can claim. We did not read Article 143 of the Civil Code and report nothing from it; what follows all comes from this Act.

2. 2

   Step 2: A care home does not extinguish the duty

   This is the Article 4(A) sentence that dismantles most assumptions. After establishing that it is the descendants’ obligation to contribute through support payments to the older adult’s maintenance, the same subsection adds: the duty to maintain older adults continues even where they have been placed in a care home or are under the custody of another person, or a public or private agency or institution. A parent being institutionalised, or living with another relative, or under an agency’s custody, does not cancel the descendants’ obligation.

3. 3

   Step 3: Who may start the petition

   Article 4(B) opens the door far wider than people assume. To make the support obligation effective, or to level it, a support petition must be filed, and it may be filed by the alimentista themselves, through their legal representative, by a law-enforcement agent, by a public or private agency or instrumentality, by a guardian, by a public official or by any private person interested in that person’s support. Any of these may start the petition before the Programme or before the Court, or file a request for services with the Programme. That means a neighbour, a social worker or a relative who is not a descendant can set the process in motion for an older person not in a condition to do it themselves.

4. 4

   Step 4: Nivelación: when one child carries everything

   Article 4(C) addresses a very common situation and gives it a name. An adult alimentante already providing support to an older ascendant may file with the Court a request that other obliged alimentantes be ordered to provide support to the alimentista. In these cases, the Act says, nivelación shall be used as the means of equitably distributing the support obligation among all those obliged. It is a remedy of its own: it is not asking for support for the parent, it is asking that the other siblings or obliged parties take up their share.

5. 5

   Step 5: The eight factors that are weighed

   Article 4(F) lists them and they are worth knowing in full because they are what actually gets argued. One, the economic resources of the alimentista and the alimentantes. Two, the health and physical, mental and emotional needs of the alimentista. Three, the alimentante’s standard of living. Four, the tax consequences for each member of the alimentante party, where practical and pertinent. Five, each alimentante’s non-monetary contributions to the alimentista’s care and wellbeing. Six, the alimentante’s other support obligations. Seven, the alimentante’s health status or mental or physical incapacity preventing economic contributions. Eight, evidence that the alimentante, from whom support is claimed, was a victim of abandonment or physical, emotional or sexual abuse by the alimentista, or that the latter failed in their obligation to provide support, duly required by order of a competent court, to their descendants when they were minors.

6. 6

   Step 6: Factor eight, said plainly

   Worth separating because it is the most surprising and the least mentioned. The Act expressly contemplates that the son or daughter from whom support is claimed may present evidence that they were a victim of abandonment or of physical, emotional or sexual abuse by the very person now claiming it, or that that person failed in their own obligation to provide support when the descendant was a minor, a court having so required. That factor is weighed alongside the other seven when fixing, modifying, levelling or setting aside the obligation. The Act does not say what weight it carries nor whether on its own it removes the duty; it says it shall be considered.

7. 7

   Step 7: It can be paid without money

   Article 4(A) announces it and 4(F)(7) develops it. The court may order an economic contribution or, as an alternative form of payment, a just and reasonable non-economic contribution. And where it is shown the alimentante cannot provide economic assistance to the alimentista, they may be ordered as an alternative form of payment to make non-economic contributions, such as doing household tasks, buying the alimentista’s everyday items, accompanying them on personal errands or attending to their health needs, among others, taking the circumstances of the case into account. Article 4(D) reinforces the same idea from the other side: besides economic capacity, non-monetary factors are considered, such as the company, care and services the descendants provide.

8. 8

   Step 8: The thirty-six month look back

   Article 4(E) gives the alimentante a bounded tool. When determining a just and reasonable contribution, at the alimentante’s request, the prudence and reasonableness with which the alimentista managed their financial affairs over a period of no more than thirty-six months may be considered, counted backwards from the date services were requested by, or on behalf of, the older alimentista. The Programme or the competent court shall take that aspect into consideration when determining the amount, if any, of the pension. Note two limits: it must be requested, and the period is three years counted backwards from the request for services, not from any date.

9. 9

   Step 9: Who administers this

   It surprises almost everyone. Article 5 creates the Programme for the Support of Older Adults attached to the Administration, as a separate operational and programmatic component, under the Administrator’s coordination, supervision, evaluation and oversight. And in the next sentence it says which Administration it means: the programme shall be governed by the personnel systems, regulations, norms and procedures in force at the Child Support Administration. That is, the same agency handling child support pensions also handles support for older adults, in a separate component. How the request is filed and how mediation works we cover in the companion guide.

Before the Programme for the Support of Older Adults, which Article 5 creates attached to the Administration and which is governed by the Child Support Administration’s systems and regulations; or before the Court, which is the route Article 4(A) reserves for when the administrative mediation procedure has not been effective, and the one Article 4(C) points to for requesting nivelación among several obliged parties. The Act publishes no addresses, telephones, forms or portals, and we do not guess government internet addresses.

• Believing the obligation ends when the parent enters a care home: Article 4(A) expressly says it continues.
• Thinking only the older adult can request it: also their legal representative, a law-enforcement agent, an agency, a guardian, a public official or any interested private person.
• Assuming that if one child already pays, the others are free: Article 4(C) allows asking the court for nivelación among all those obliged.
• Believing only money counts: the Act allows non-economic contributions as an alternative form of payment and weighs each child’s non-monetary contributions.
• Assuming having no income frees you: Article 4(F)(7) allows ordering household tasks, shopping, accompaniment or health care instead.
• Ignoring factor eight: the Act contemplates evidence of abandonment or abuse by the person now claiming, and failure to provide support when the descendant was a minor.
• Expecting the court to review the alimentista’s financial management on its own: the thirty-six month look-back of Article 4(E) must be requested.
• Counting the thirty-six months from any date: they are counted backwards from the date services were requested.
• Looking for a table of amounts: the Act publishes none, it is fixed case by case.
• Going to the wrong agency: the programme is attached to the same Administration that handles child support, as a separate component.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Administración para el Sustento de Menores (ASUME)

  ASUME

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov