CHAPTER 9

Intrafamily Gifts of Kindness

I often use the term nurture to describe the behavior of parents in supporting, encouraging, and otherwise developing their offspring. Most millionaire women and men take nurturing beyond this standard definition by providing their children with a variety of “economic acts of kindness” long after they have reached adulthood. Millionaires often also provide substantial economic subsidies to other family members, including grandchildren, nieces and nephews, and less fortunate brothers and sisters.

Women and men differ in the degree to which they provide family members with economic gifts, as presented in Table 9-1. As might be expected, women are significantly more nurturing than men, allocating nearly 5.0 percent (median) of their annual realized income to their adult children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters, and other relatives. Men who are millionaires allocate a smaller portion, less than 2.0 percent, of their annual income.

Nearly nine in ten (89 percent) of millionaire women have provided their adult children with interest-free loans. Only 60 percent of millionaire men have done the same. Over time, most interest-free loans usually become forgiveness loans, which do not require repayment. About two-thirds (65 percent) of millionaire women have provided their adult children with financial assistance in purchasing a home, but only about half (51 percent) of the millionaire men did the same.

There is usually a progression in “lending” money to one’s adult children. Typically money is provided in the form of a low-interest loan; then the low-interest loan becomes a no-interest loan; next, the no-interest loan is often converted into a forgiveness loan. Forgiveness loans in turn often precipitate financial assistance in purchasing a home, which translates into making mortgage payments for one’s adult son or daughter. Finally, it is often the outright gift of a home that results in an increase in the variety and size of economic outpatient care (EOC) given by parents to their adult children and grandchildren. It’s unfortunate, but parents who attempt to prop up the social and economic status of their adult children or subsidize their lifestyles find that they must continue to do so for a lifetime and beyond.

 

TABLE 9-1
MILLIONAIRE WOMEN VS. MEN: ECONOMIC OUTPATIENT CARE GIVEN BY PARENTS TO THEIR ADULT CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN

Percent of Millionaires:
Women Men
1. INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSFER OF CASH OR SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME BENEFITS
Periodic gifts of cash in the amount of $20,000 or more 43% 27%
Interest-free loans 89% 60%
Cash or forgiveness loans to start or enhance a business 44% 26%
2. INTERGENERATIONAL HOME OWNER’S SUPPLEMENTS  
Financial assistance in purchasing a home 65% 51%
3. SECOND-GENERATION EDUCATIONAL ENHANCEMENT  
Funding of tuition for children’s undergraduate college education 78% 80%
Funding of tuition for children’s graduate college education 31% 29%
4. THIRD-GENERATION EDUCATIONAL ENHANCEMENT  
Funding of tuition for grandchildren’s private grade school and/or high school 54% 44%
5. TRANSFERS OF PRIVATE ASSETS  
Gifts of farm or timber land to adult children or grandchildren 9% 5%
Gifts of shares of family or private business to adult children 30% 16%
6. INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSFERS OF VALUABLES OR COLLECTIBLES  
Gifts of gems, precious metals, or coin or stamp collections 56% 25%
Gifts of family engagement or wedding ring or diamond 41% NA
7. TRANSFERS OF SECURITIES  
Gifts of publicly traded securities to adult children 63% 37%
8. PLANNED INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSFER OF WEALTH  
Establishment of trust accounts for children or grandchildren 59% 35%

 

Often, at least one of the adult children of millionaires never becomes as economically successful as his or her parents, and the parents respond by taking aggressive domestic action, giving these children economic outpatient care. They heavily subsidize their adult children and allow them to live well above their economic means. Subsidizing the consumption lifestyles of adult children weakens their ambition and motivation to achieve. In turn, they become more and more reliant upon the dollars doled out by their wealthy and well-intentioned parents.

In some extreme cases, these highly subsidized economically underachieving adult children find themselves facing a dilemma. They become the guardians for elderly parents who are incapacitated, and they live in fear of having to lower their own high-consumption lifestyles. What if the money that their parents put away for high-quality assisted living begins to reduce the number of dollars earmarked for the children’s economic outpatient care? What if Mother requires years and years of intensive assisted care? What if the size of Mother’s estate is being eroded by medical and related health-care bills as well as poorly performing investments? These issues may well be perceived by the heavily subsidized daughter or son as a major threat to their lifestyle.

THE DILEMMA

Such cases are not unusual today in America, and people contact me about these and related issues. They reveal their own, often bitter experiences. They also tell of family conflicts that are caused by the particular manner in which wealth within families is distributed.

Millionaire women are very generous in providing economic acts of kindness to their adult children, but frequently they are too kind. The typical millionaire produces three children. In terms of achievements, they are not all likely to be equally productive. What is a mother to do when one of her three adult children is unable to maintain even a modest form of middle-class lifestyle, yet the other two children had no problem achieving on their own? More often than not, it is Mom who will take the blame. She reasons that it was her fault that her “Beth” or “Bob” never finished college, never had much ambition, was never wise in selecting a spouse, was never lucky at finding a suitable job, never succeeded in operating the antiques business that Mother bankrolled, never seemed to be able to purchase a home without being heavily subsidized, never succeeded as a day trader, and so on.

Their mothers often refer to these sorts of children as “poor Beth” or “poor Bob”: “Poor Beth and her husband can’t afford to purchase a home. They need some financial help.” Or “Poor Bob and his wife, they need a new roof but don’t have the money. I’m going to pick up the tab.” The “poor” preface denotes pity, but what about the sisters and brothers of Beth and Bob? They are the productive ones, and they, too, blame Mother for spoiling Beth and indulging Bob. When they speak to me about “poor Beth” or “poor Bob,” it is not in ways that connote pity. The preface “poor” rings with sarcasm and contempt for the giver and taker of economic subsidies. Yes, they see things differently from Mother, who, in their minds, is the root cause of Beth’s and Bob’s dependency and unproductive lifestyle. They reason that Mother gave Beth and Bob too many fish and never taught them how to fish on their own. Beth’s and Bob’s productive siblings will tell you that they are self-sufficient because they were not indulged, not overprotected, never spoiled.

Why is it that a disproportionately large percentage of the oldest children are the most productive? Is it because they received more attention from their parents? Or is it that they had to learn to do things for themselves while their parents were devoting much—often too much—time, energy, and money to doting on Beth and indulging Bob?

Usually the Beth and Bob types receive economic subsidies from Mother throughout their lifetimes and even beyond. They, the weak of character, are further weakened. They are likely to receive the lion’s share of Mother’s economic handouts during her lifetime, as well as a disproportionately large share or, in some cases, all of their mother’s estate. Thus, even after they pass away, these mothers continue to weaken their weakest children. The strong get little or nothing, and they expect that. Receiving little or no economic outpatient care from an estate tends to strengthen the strong.

There is a difference between being kind and being overindulgent, which can create much friction within a family. It is the weak versus the strong, with Mother, the self-made millionaire, in the middle. Mother is well intentioned. She thinks that her Beth should have the same socioeconomic lifestyle as her more productive children. She believes that her money can accomplish that and that her productive children will understand, even encourage, the subsidies that she gives to her Beth and her Bob.

Money handouts will not make an unproductive child productive. And no matter how many times she refers to “poor Beth” this and “poor Bob” that, her productive children will not change their views. In fact, the more she tries to persuade them to change their definition of “poor,” the more friction is created.

There is another problem that many of these mothers never anticipate. Over the years, they will have doled out much of their economic resources to the weak Beth and the dependent Bob. When it comes to the late stages of their lives, do they really think that Beth and Bob will provide for them? Will they be willing to provide first-class assisted living for Mother that might require them to reduce their high-consumption standard of living? Remember that Mother trained them to appreciate a lifestyle that was far above their own self-generated resources. What will it be, Beth and Bob—your lifestyle or your mother’s health care? The answers to these and related questions point in one direction. Everyone who can afford it should use the services of a top trust company and estate attorney. These professionals should be employed to make certain that even if one is incapacitated, one’s golden years are at the gold level indeed.

Why do people need to tell me about their own experiences, revealing that family conflicts are caused by certain forms of economic outpatient care? They hope that by reporting the evils of overindulgence they can help others not to make their mistakes. Typically it is the strong, productive daughters and sons who reveal certain family secrets. Their mothers, the self-made economically successful women, also share their concerns and opinions. They all have a strong need to tell their stories about the unproductive sister or brother who exploits the wealth and good nature of their mother. The sad tale that follows is a consolidation of many such revelations.

RESTITUTION AND EXTORTION FAMILY STYLE: BETH AND BOB, THE PRO FORMA EXPLOITATIVE COUPLE

Mother, aka Mrs. M., gave her daughter Beth and her son-in-law Bob cash for the down payment on the purchase of a home. The couple received more than $150,000 or about one-half the purchase price of the home. At that time, Mrs. M. reasoned that the couple’s earnings would enable them to pay the balance of the purchase price in monthly mortgage payments.

Within two years of buying the home, Beth gave birth to the couple’s second child, and then decided not to return to work for a year … or two or three. Beth explained to her mother that the couple would not be able to pay the mortgage on their home. What were they to do? Mrs. M. suggested that she would make the mortgage payments until Beth was working again. Eventually Beth returned to work part-time. She gave birth to a third child and then another. How was the couple to make ends meet now that there were four children to support?

Mrs. M. thought she had a solution to the couple’s dilemma. What if she could enhance her daughter’s self-esteem and make things a bit easier for Beth and her family? Mrs. M. thought both of these things could be accomplished just by writing a check, so she paid off the entire balance on Beth and Bob’s home. In an instant, Beth and Bob owned outright a lovely home in a nice middle-to upper-class neighborhood. After paying off the mortgage, Mrs. M. made it clear that there would be no more housing subsidies, no more economic outpatient care—unless, of course, they had a dire economic emergency.

For nearly two years after paying off the mortgage, Mrs. M. gave Beth and Bob little in the way of direct economic outpatient care. She did, however, transfer some of her wealth indirectly, in another form. These transfers were precipitated by what might be called a series of economic emergencies.

Beth and Bob often complained to Beth’s mother about the poor quality of the public schools in their district. They explained that the lack of a good education at the elementary and high school levels would reduce the probability that their children would gain admission to a quality college or university. Bob also sent certain news clippings to Mrs. M., and the theme was always the same: “Drugs Present at Local Public High Schools,” “Problems at Local Public School,” and “Assaults at High School.” Mrs. M. responded to these revelations by agreeing to pay for all of her grandchildren’s private school tuition.

Other than this, Mrs. M. deflected Beth’s requests for more direct forms of economic outpatient care. She did “help out” when the couple purchased a new SUV, but for several years Mrs. M. was otherwise insensitive to the couple’s requests for cash subsidies.

Mrs. M. began to believe that Beth and Bob were finally making it on their own. However, they were a conniving pair. Using his shortlived job experience in the insurance and financial-training area, Bob devised a plan to loosen his mother-in-law’s purse strings. Bob and Beth took out a series of equity loans on the home that Mrs. M. had bought for them—after all, they owned the home outright with no mortgage clouding the title.

Equity loans! Equity loans! What a wonderful idea. How else could they pay for their new camper and vacations to Mexico and the Bahamas? How else were they supposed to pay for his-and-her water-craft and their storage? How else could Bob even think of upgrading to a top-of-the-line all-terrain vehicle? Don’t forget the cost of operating and maintaining two cars and one SUV. And, of course, it’s rather expensive to clothe four kids who attend upscale private schools.

After more than two years of outlandish consumption financed by home equity loans, the couple could not pay off the loans on their own and were faced with the loss of their home. Without additional support for their hyperspending and their outstanding debt, Beth and Bob would likely have to sell the house. But Bob had anticipated that Mrs. M. would have no alternative but to pay off the equity loans for them. Otherwise, she risked having her daughter and four grandchildren living on the street.

What happened when they dropped this bombshell on Mrs. M.? She was angry and emotionally distraught, but as Bob had predicted, she eventually capitulated and began paying off the equity loans. In her mind, she had no choice. Call it what you like, but in essence it was economic outpatient care via extortion.

In regard to Beth’s problems in life, Mrs. M. always felt that she was at fault. How else could it be that her son and older daughter were so productive, while Beth accumulated little and had a marginal husband, major debts, and very low self-esteem? Mrs. M. reasoned that she had devoted too little time to raising this daughter. During Beth’s formative years, her mother had been involved in running her business; she had also spent a lot of time caring for her own mother during a long, painful terminal illness.

Mrs. M. still feels that some children need more nurturing in order to succeed in life and that some children are programmed at birth to succeed. So it was with her two other children. It seemed that they were always well behaved. They were straight-? students from day one. Given these experiences, Mrs. M. expected that Beth would develop into a successful adult just like her brother and sister. When Beth first ran into problems in elementary school, Mrs. M. thought this was just a short phase. She soon realized that Beth’s personality traits and needs were very different from those of her other children. Accordingly, Mrs. M. pampered Beth. She forgave her and indulged her, unwittingly exacerbating Beth’s problematic tendencies. Mrs. M. realizes this today, but what is a mother to do? Beth cannot maintain a middle-class lifestyle without major doses of Mother’s economic outpatient care. In every case where Mrs. M. attempted to remove Beth from her dependency on economic outpatient care, Beth and her creative husband took countermeasures that proved successful. Whenever there was even a hint that the economic-outpatient-care valve would be shut off, Beth and Bob figured out a way to open it even wider.

Over the years, Beth developed a great deal of resentment toward her brother and sister. Both were economically productive, had strong marriages, and were well educated. She was terribly jealous of them and their successes. Beth’s brother had graduated with honors from a prestigious college and then attended law school. Beth’s sister had also been a scholar in her undergraduate and graduate studies. Mrs. M. had paid for much of these educational costs, although some were covered by scholarships.

Beth blames her mother’s lack of encouragement for all her problems. What other reason could there be for Beth’s not attending college? In her mind, she’d been shortchanged by her own mother. She and Bob strongly believe that she is owed a great deal of economic restitution.

Obviously, Beth’s logic is faulty. Mrs. M. wanted all her children to attend college. She started college funds for each of them prior to their births. So what happened to all those accumulated dollars in Beth’s college fund? Mrs. M. maintained this fund even when Beth was no longer a minor; but even when Beth reached her twenty-first birthday, she never inquired about it. Then she married Bob, and months before the couple married, he got wind of the existence of Beth’s college fund. He told Beth that all the money in the fund, well over $100,000, was hers and pointed out that Mrs. M. could not stop Beth from accessing it.

When Beth and Bob confronted Mrs. M. about disposition of the college fund, she had no choice but to relinquish control of the money. Predictably, the couple ran through it in short order.

The lump sum of restitution was not enough for Beth and Bob. After all, think of the lifetime differences. What would a person like high school graduate Beth be expected to earn as opposed to her brother or sister with advanced college degrees? Beth and Bob felt that Mrs. M. should make up the difference. Call this life-cycle restitution. How else could the couple maintain the same standard of living Beth’s brother and sister enjoyed?

Mrs. M. never agreed to provide the couple with a monthly fixed-dollar dose. She doled out money to the couple when they convinced her that they had a serious need. If Mrs. M. balked, she was treated to a variety of distasteful, psychologically painful actions that she found particularly distressing after her husband passed away. Both her son and other daughter and their families lived far away in other parts of the country, but Beth and her family lived near Mrs. M. She had frequent contact with Beth and her grandchildren, which was very comforting to Mrs. M. This fact made some of the actions taken by Beth and Bob to precipitate more and more economic outpatient care all the more potent.

A RUNAWAY BEST-SELLER

What if Beth and her husband, Bob, wrote a book on how to extort economic outpatient care successfully? Imagine that Beth and Bob are so proud of their book they agree to be interviewed on the nationally televised Barry Prince talk show.

BARRY: Good evening. Tonight we have a very special couple as guests for our entire program. They are the authors of the runaway best-selling book Getting Your Fair Share and More. They, like all of the guests on our show, have been injected with our own special formula of “one-hundred-proof truth serum.” Beth, how did you convince your mother to pay for so many expenses?

BETH: I look at it this way: What can I conclude if Mother thinks so little of her grandkids that she won’t help with their school expenses and transportation? To her, these kids are Cinderellas, inferior to my brother’s kids—my kids are not worthy. Yet Mother is always coming over to visit her Cinderellas. She always wants to be here for their birthdays, on holidays, weekday evenings, weekends—you name it. The soft sell did not work, so we decided to place Mother on the cold turkey program. That’s what we call chapter 6 in our book: “The Cold Turkey Program.”

BOB: Beth’s mother is addicted to our kids, but in a lot of ways she treats them like Cinderellas. She’d probably prefer to be with her son’s children, but they live on the other side of the country.

BARRY: Okay, but explain what you mean by “cold turkey.”

BETH: Like it says in our book, the “Cold Turkey Program” is an extreme method. It may have to be deployed when one or both grandparents are stonewalling. If Mother has an addiction, one must capitalize upon it. So we decided to cut her off from contact with us and the children. Mother was always invited to the birthday parties for our kids. Too often she took over the event. She planned things without asking what our kids wanted to do in terms of activities, prizes, and games. So when the next birthday was coming up, we did not invite her.

BARRY: Did she inquire about why she was not being invited?

BETH: Oh sure, but I never told her that it was because she refused to help us with the new car and private school expenses. I just said we were having our parties at places like McDonald’s and such, and there was limited seating. I also told her that she should call before she, as she calls it, stops by for a few minutes.

BARRY: What did you do when she called and asked if she could stop by?

BOB: Oh, let me do this one. It’s all in the book. You have to ask yourself about your immediate objective. You want to get her off the phone in a heartbeat before she asks to stop by. One of the best ways of doing this is what we call the “Embarrassment Method.” Say she calls one Saturday; right after she says hello you might say, “Oh, I have a room full of neighbors here right now.” She feels embarrassed that she has interrupted something. It works every time. Or “I’m waiting for an important phone call from our son John’s teacher.” Again, she’s off the phone in a second. Or “I’m just walking out the door to pick up the kids from karate lessons. I have been late picking them up the last two times.” Again, she’s off the phone. Or “Something is burning on the stove.” This is a really effective method during dinnertime.

BARRY: Don’t you think these tactics are a bit cruel?

BETH: We talk about this in the first chapter. Cruel, maybe, but always remember that you’re fighting for your pride and what is rightfully yours. You deserve it; you must demand restitution. You’re fighting for your kids, and as my psychologist says, you’re fighting for your self-esteem. The ends justify the means—he has often said that.

BARRY: How long have you been counseled by a psychologist?

BETH: For ten years. Mother pays for it all, and she should. He often tells me that it’s Mother’s fault that I did not go to college. He said I was an extremely bright person with great potential.

BARRY: Interesting. But let me return to our discussion of cold turkey methods.

BETH: Barry, we have gotten hundreds of letters and e-mails from other Cinderellas. They shared some of their own cold turkey methods. Let me just read a few from the book. It’s under the heading “Cold Turkey: Excluding the Grandparents.” That is, excluding them from: vacations with children and grandchildren, Little League baseball games, church events, school plays, and holiday celebrations. I could go on and on with these cases from Cinderellas.

BARRY: But, Beth, don’t you worry that your mother will get angry and completely cut you off from more restitution?

BOB: It can happen. It happened with my first wife, but we didn’t have any kids. It’s the kids, the grandchildren, who are the real lever in getting restitution.

BARRY: Well, Beth and Bob, this has been really illuminating. That’s all for tonight, folks, and thank you, Bob and Beth.

A LETTER FROM A CINDERELLA

Re: My mother, my sister, and your words, ringing in my ear

Dear Dr. Stanley:

You mentioned that those parents who provide certain forms of economic outpatient care have significantly less wealth than those whose adult children are economically independent. Also, that the more dollars adult children receive, the fewer they accumulate, while those who are given fewer dollars accumulate more (The Millionaire Next Door, pp. 142-143).

My parents, especially my mother, did precisely what you predicted:

Distributors of EOC often conclude that their adult children [mainly my sister] could not maintain a … high-consumption lifestyle without being subsidized. [My sister and her husband] are playing the role of successful members of the high-income-producing upper middle class, yet their lifestyle is a facade…. [They] are high-volume consumers of status products and services, from their … home in upscale suburbia to their imported luxury motor vehicles … from their country club affiliations to the private school they select[ed] for their children. [My sister and her husband] are living proof of one simple rule regarding EOC: It is much easier to spend other people’s money [my parents’ wealth] than dollars that are self-generated. (The Millionaire Next Door, p. 143)

My sister and her family have been indulged by my parents for all her married life, for more than thirty years. She and her husband are the case of your Mary and Lamar revisited. My sister and her husband, in their mid-fifties, still want more EOC. Without it they will be unable to continue with their charade.

As you stated:

The real problem [for my mother] … is that her daughter’s family is in a situation of economic dependency. Mother has difficulty with the fact that her daughter married someone who is unable to earn a high income…. Daughter and grandchildren may not be able to live in an environment congruent with mother’s upper-middle-class background. So Mother is determined to enhance the environment of her daughter’s family. (The Millionaire Next Door; pp. 145-46)

My sister and her family; like Mary and Lamar; are living in an upper-middle-class fantasyland (The Millionaire Next Door; p. 148). I’m four years older than my sister: I’m the Cinderella Sarah you wrote about; my sister is the sister you contrasted.

People often ask … how offspring of the same parents can differ so much when it comes to accumulating wealth. How could Sarah and her sister be so different? … Much of the difference … can be explained by variations in how parents relate to each of their children. [Sarah’s father] encouraged Sarah to become … [an] accumulator while fostering the opposite trait in her sister…. He strengthened the strong daughter while weakening the weaker one. When Sarah left home, she burned her bridges. She received no outpatient subsidies. She had no choice but to learn how to “fish” for herself. And she taught herself very well. At the same time, her sister became progressively more dependent on Papa for … money…. The real tragedy is the helplessness of those who come to depend on outpatient care. (The Millionaire Next Door; pp. 189-90)

My husband and I, along with our three children, are self-made decamillionaires. We opened a business soon after we were wed, and all three of our children started working in it when they were in their early teens. They have worked ever since, and are millionaire shareholders. We went public in 1996. Our children always worked for what they have accumulated. My sister’s children, like their mother; never worked for a living. She was given every luxury by my parents. She “married poor,” so my parents made up for it year after year.

As in your discussions of economic outpatient care, my parents first made a large down payment for my sister’s home, but the “poor family” could not make ends meet. So my parents eventually paid off the entire mortgage.

Over the years, my parents have paid for almost every conceivableexpense that my sister and brother-in-law have incurred: mortgage payments, private school tuition, expensive dental work, braces for their children, music lessons, cars, and cosmetic surgery.

The economic outpatient care never stopped. On and on it went. Now for more than three years my widowed mother has been in and out of hospitals and nursing homes. Twice they thought that she would never recover, but somehow she held on to life. She is currently residing in a third-class nursing home. She has had a series of strokes and suffers from Alzheimer’s.

I know that my mother always worried about being disabled, so she did put a good amount of money aside for her own health care. I understand that the money was enough to provide her with quality care for years. My sister, who was given every form of EOC, now feels threatened about the prospects that the well is drying up. She is in complete control as my mother’s guardian … and has power of attorney.

My mother, at one time, did have enough wealth remaining to enjoy a decent life and quality care during her last remaining years, but that care is being repeatedly compromised by my sister. She is worried that her inheritance is being eroded; she wants to make certain that there is money remaining for her. She continues to reduce the quality of care my mother is entitled to receive.

Sincerely,

Cinderella

A REPLY FOR CINDERELLA

Dear Cinderella:

Note that much of what Sarah did for her parents was not included in the text of The Millionaire Next Door. The interview I conducted with Sarah ran nearly three hours, so I could only print a bit of what she said. Sarah did more than “turn the other cheek,” and I suggest you do the same. She too was cast out, essentially disinherited, and her sister and her sister’s children were given major doses of EOC. Yet when Sarah’s mother and father were terminally ill, she oversaw and made certain that they both received high-grade health care. Later she did the same for her sister, the sister who received all the EOC from their parents. Sarah’s sister squandered all of the EOC and inheritance she received, but Sarah paid for much of her parents’ high-grade care. Sarah also paid for her sister’s children’s education and weddings.

Why did Sarah do so much for her parents, the people who’d disinherited her? In part, it’s because Sarah is a woman of great character and integrity, but there is more to it than that. Sarah never resented her parents for giving all the EOC to her sister, nor did she resent her sister for being on the dole for all those many years. No, Sarah felt that indeed she was the fortunate daughter, and you should feel the same way.

Like you did early in your life, Sarah opted for early emancipation from the confining pressures of her mother and father. She disobeyed her parents and she worked. You did also. You went the entrepreneurial route when your parents wanted the “lady of leisure” act for you. They blamed your spouse for influencing your disobedience. So what if they objected to your choice of mate? It’s time to forgive. It’s time for you to step in and make amends. Restore your mother’s dignity by placing her back in the first-class nursing facility where she began her terminal health-care experience. Take control of your mother’s future. You have the strength and financial means to more than counter your sister’s unconscionable behavior. Unconscionable behavior is perhaps a better term to use at this juncture than embezzlement.

Regardless of what you call her actions, forgive your sister. Again, you are the lucky one, the more fortunate sister. You did what you really wanted to do. You set your own goals for being independent and achieved them. This partly explains your high levels of pride and self-esteem, but your sister’s goals were shoved down her throat. Is it any wonder that she has low self-esteem? Your focus is on achieving; hers is on consuming. She is consumed by consumption.

You were indeed lucky. Your parents’ efforts to mold you into a lady, a nonworking suburban country clubber, were futile, but that made it more difficult for your sister to follow your path. Because of your early emancipation and related acts of domestic treason, your parents became all the more resolute. They were determined that your sister would toe the line, and they had more time and energy to devote to molding her, since you left home early.

As a leader, you should take the initiative. Help your mother. Yes, help the woman who repeatedly turned her back on you and your children.

Forgive and take pity on your sister. Today she is in a constant state of fear and panic related to her own possible economic disaster, and that’s what compelled her to cut back on the quality of your mother’s care. Your sister is like most women who are dominated and taken care of by their parents. Most constantly “whistle past the graveyard” and never envision that the EOC will someday dry up, as it did in your family.

The choice is yours. You will not get another chance to save your mother from spending her last few days in squalor. In the future, you can think of your sister’s behavior and lifestyle in Shakespeare’s terms:

   How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.

But it was also Shakespeare who wrote:

The quality of mercy is not strain’d.

Many people in your situation selected the “mercy” route, but they reconciled with their parents and siblings at an earlier stage in life.

Today you have a great opportunity. You alone can prevent yet another generation, your children and your sister’s children, from having animosity and resentment toward each other. Tell your children not to resent their aunt—your sister—and their first cousins. So what if their cousins received cars, private school tuition, musical instruments, braces for their teeth, cosmetic surgery, and, of course, lots of cash from their grandmother? So what if your children did not? Explain to them that these items of EOC were pushed upon their cousins, and that they had to trade their independence and pride to continue receiving them. The EOC their cousins received should not perpetuate the family estrangement.

Finally, remind your children often about the dangers of too much EOC. It can destroy ambition, drive, and pride, and those who live in fear of having their EOC cut off often panic. Their very way of life is being threatened, so their fear is unrelenting. It’s almost like the fear of losing one’s life. It should not be surprising that for those who have long depended on EOC, the choice is not all that difficult.

What to do when it becomes a matter of choice—should Mother’s standard of living be lowered or one’s own? Too often, Mother’s is the answer. Becoming economically successful and financially independent is a much better route than accepting dependence on EOC, but being successful financially is not satisfying if one is filled with hate and resentment toward one’s siblings. Shakespeare also said,

Nothing emboldens sin so much as mercy.

   It’s a matter of time and allocation of mental energy. Your sister spent much of her time planning for shopping. You spent yours planning to achieve and succeed. She spent her time trying to predict the amount and category of EOC her family could receive next time. You spent your time and emotional energy balancing a business and raising your kids to be independent. That is why you are a satisfied and economically successful woman.

Thank you for sharing your case history. I wish you and your family much love and harmony.

Regards,

T.J.S.