Avoid care home fees by divorcing!

[champchomp]

I know this sounds extreme but I’m thinking ahead. DH is a bit older than me and is having some health problems. We have no mortgage and he has a good pension and savings. I’ve seen instances where a spouse has entered a care home and the other one has struggled to pay the fees and had to sell up and use all the savings. Hypothetically speaking would divorcing and splitting assets protect some of the money and property. I know anything could happen between now and if my husband needs care but it worries me and we have children we would like to help financially if need be. I’d always be there for DH no matter what and visa versa. But financially does it make sense to financially separate/divorce if care is needed for either of us?

Exactly. We'll all be delighted to pick up the tab.
Sigh.

It’s miserable. I don’t know we all want to live longer to end up draining our funds and families for a few extra years decaying in a care home!

The seven year rule only applies to inheritance tax on death. The LA can go back as many years as they want in order to try to prove actions taken were deliberate deprivation of assets in the face of impending care home needs. You need to put these trusts in place when you are in good health and well before any suggestion of a realistic prospect of care home needs in the future. Remember only a small minority of people will need care homes in their old age.

1. A lot of other people have worked hard, why are you more deserving of cheap/free care than them?
2. If you have a lot of income, what have you saved towards your care for old age. If you haven't, why not?
3. Are you prepared to pay substantially more tax so that adult social care is provided differently?
4. If you don't want to pay for it, then don't use it, make alternative arrangements where you or your relatives provide the care yourselves, and adapt your home accordingly
5. Many aspects of public services have been chronically underfunded/cut for years because people don't want to pay more taxes and have been led to believe they can have Scandinavian levels of service on American levels of taxes. Adult social care is one of those, as is the NHS. You pays your money, you takes your choices
6. Subject for a whole other thread but in my communist utopia I'd ban inheritance. And raise taxes.

I can tell you’ve never had to look after anyone with dementia.

Might add that, from experience, it’s something of a ‘luxury’ to be able to self fund. Otherwise you’re completely dependent on the tender mercies of usually hard pressed social services, who typically will not approve a care home placement until family doing their best to care are absolutely on their knees with stress and exhaustion.

I heard of someone who became so desperate, she told SS that if they didn’t do something NOW, she was going to take her relative (with dementia) to A&E and leave him/her there.

If you self fund, at least you can choose the time and place.

Aren't "council funded care homes" a thing of the past? They are privately owned businesses and the care given is the same whether the client pays out of their own pocket or it is paid for by benefits. All care homes are inspected by the Care Quality Commission and are rated according. A poor rating does not mean lower fees. The food served up is exactly the same for private funders and those funded by the local authority/benefits. In the 1980s, many health and social care staff I worked with were busy setting up private care homes as local authorities were unburdening themselves of them. I worked on the over 65 medical wards.

To this I would add

The most important factor is staff. Better staff training and recruitment and retention by being able to afford to pay them more than minimum wage and treat them well. Most care homes that cannot afford to do this rely on an ever changing cast of recent Eastern European immigrants with poor English and a poor standard of education who have only taken this job because they couldn’t get one in a supermarket. There are many lovely dedicated staff working in the care sector but if you were one of those you would work for a better employer wouldn’t you?

Second to that is better creature comforts; better food, better decor and maintenance and more entertainment (they should have an activities coordinator and actually put on activities. Better yet if the tailor them individually to their clients)

I see whoever keeps posting that a lot of care homes are mixed. Maybe so but that masks a complicated picture eg most places will keep you on as LA funded when your money runs out (most ask for 2years minimum ability to self fund calculating that this is beyond the average lifespan in a care home) The fact of the matter remains you get what you pay for and the stats bear that out:

‘In terms of care homes with ratings, care homes rated outstanding had the highest proportion of self-funders (50.9%), which is statistically significantly higher than all other ratings (Figure 6). Care homes rated inadequate had the lowest proportion of self-funders (24.0%), which was statistically significantly lower than all other ratings, except for requires improvement (30.1%). The proportion of self-funders in the care home decreased as quality rating decreased’
From an ONS report https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/socialcare/articles/carehomesandestimatingtheselffundingpopulationengland/2022to2023#comparing-the-proportion-of-self-funders-by-care-home-characteristics

I haven’t told them what to do. I am correct. My children benefited from my savings when they needed it - to buy their first homes and support through university. They didn’t have to wait til I died.

If you think good care could be delivered more cheaply don’t you think a competitive market would have developed?
it costs that much because that how much it costs to have people working 24/7 as well as providing all the other things you probably take for granted at home.
I think the costs of keeping someone in prison are even higher , and the standards there are much lower, but you don’t hear many complaints about that, do you?

It is so difficult, we went through this with MIL who got very ill. All her assets went in a few years and nothing left for her family (one who is disabled).

But then why should the state pay for her care when she had the money? Not really sure what the right answer is, it is horrible to go through.

Agreed that divorce wouldn’t be of much use in avoiding care fees, mainly a bad idea because half the house value would be lost if assets were split on divorce and if they stay married a house that a spouse is living in cannot be taken into account in the calculation of assets for care purposes.

It is wrong to state that half of the partners assets will be deemed to be owned by the person needing care and be taken towards care costs. That would only apply for division of assets on divorce. Only assets that the person requiring care has specific title to can be taken into the calculation. Assets owned solely by the spouse cannot be touched. Joint accounts are deemed to be owned 50:50 unless there is documentation to show otherwise.

The fact of the matter remains you get what you pay for and the stats bear that out:

‘In terms of care homes with ratings, care homes rated outstanding had the highest proportion of self-funders (50.9%), which is statistically significantly higher than all other ratings

Sure, but the rest of those residents (almost half) in the homes rated as outstanding aren’t self-funded, are they?

My stepfather was partially funded, and his care was second to none. Yes, the place was a bit tatty but the staff were amazing, he put weight on because he was fed so well, he was engaged in all sorts of great activities. He was happy, having been pretty miserable and lonely before he went into the home.

I do pity the poor old 24% of people paying privately in an inadequate care home in that ONS report. WTAF would possess you to do that I wondered until I remembered that their mercenary family members probably picked a shitty cheap place in the hope of holding onto some inheritance. It does happen. In my career I have met such people (far outweighed by all the good caring dedicated people but bad apples are always there) Shame on them. Particularly beware who you give LPA to if you are childfree as it was often people with less connection that did this.

It actually doesn’t matter. If the spouse or minor children of the person needing care are still living in the house it cannot be taken into account to pay for care needs, even if it is solely owned by the care recipient. This is to avoid dependents becoming homeless.

@champchomp

Private care homes differ massively to state provided care homes. So you offload your assets, is that the ending you really want for your husband, to go to a care home you cant choose which most likely has much lower standards?

If you divorce and split assets, when he dies you no longer have tax free inheritance from him. Married spouses can pass assets between each other free of inheritance tax.

Speak to a financial advisor before you do anything drastic

So many selfish entitled people taking the 'I've paid my taxes all my life so I'm entitled to care home costs being covered'.
Majority of the bloody country pays it's taxes so why the fuck should we / I pay home care fees for some selfish bastard who wants to give money to their adult kids?
Look after your family yourself or stop whinging it's called being a cfer.

Well you could hope that you end up among the lucky ones then rather than the more likely outcome of an inadequate or RI place which were over 70% state funded

Theres lots of reasons eg many of those will have stated self funded and run out of money, then if you have a very complex illness or behavioural challenges the state might have to fund a better quality place for you as the standard ones will not take you. Or you might just get lucky and a good place has a bed that they can’t fill with a self funder at the right time but if the LA can pay less they absolutely will and the overall association is clear. It still backs up my point that you get what you pay for.

You think you’ll be penalised for working but want other working people to pay for your care? Tad hypocritical?

It can be - it’s just not a forced sale, there will be a charge made against the property instead

I know, I was there. Three day weeks, strikes. DH was self employed, we had moved to a different part of the UK, so no council house for us.

Private rented slum, toilet in the yard, buying wasn't aspirational it was a necessity that we put every penny into. Perhaps surprisingly, like lots of home owners, we are not wealthy, we have few savings. The value of our house is well under the threshhold for IT. It would be nice to think that our DGC could benefit in a small way. They will should neither of us need a care home for an age related condition. It's a lottery.

We looked at a good many care homes for DM and FiL (both dementia but thank goodness not at the same time) and I’d just say that IMO smart decor is no indicator of the sort of care they provide. IMO it’s often there to impress family who are choosing.
Cosy and homely, even if a mite shabby round the edges, are IMO far more important, along with cheerful, friendly staff.

My bil lived into his 90s and was a benefit scrounger and was in one of the best care homes in West Sussex all paid for by the council.

Is it because he's getting a bit rickety and you'd actually like to just divorce him before things get really messy and tedious.Is that what this is really about?

I definitely agree with this. As part of my job I go in to nursing homes - recently as very expensive exclusive hone has been placed in to special measures with families taking legal action due to poor standards. Fur coat and no knickers cones to mind