This is a measure spotted by our colleagues at Les Échos, which has garnered the support of the presidential majority, the socialists and… the rebels. This Monday, the deputies largely validated article 9 of the proposed law aimed at building the society of aging well in France. Objective of this text, contested by the right and the National Rally: remove the obligation, for grandchildren, to finance the accommodation of a grandparent in a nursing home, if they cannot pay for it without social assistance to accommodation (ASH). A way, for those supporting this change, to defend the purchasing power of young people, while promoting access to this aid.
Today, descendants – children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren – “are concerned by the maintenance obligation towards their father, mother or their ascendants in need”, specifies the administration. It must make it possible to finance the life – including care or clothing – of a relative in need. It can also be used to contribute to their accommodation in a structure such as a retirement home or a nursing home: those obliged must then finance “part of the costs of accommodating a loved one in a retirement home”. If a senior applies for ASH, “the departmental council pays the difference between the amount of the invoice and the contribution of the person accommodated, or even of their dependents which it can contribute”. Each departmental council defines its rules in this area: some have decided not to ask for grandchildren, while others continue to do so.
But, for some, this obligation poses a problem. In 2018, a parliamentary information report indicated that this system “gives rise to conflicts and disputes in families”. In addition, the obligation may push some individuals to rely on their loved ones, rather than on public assistance. It is at the “origin of non-requests” from people who could benefit from ASH, payment of which “may be conditional on the prior initiation of the maintenance obligation of the children or grandchildren “, underlined the report.
Article 9 of the proposed law therefore removes the maintenance obligation “for grandchildren with regard to social assistance for accommodation (ASH), still in force in certain departments”. “Residing in an establishment must no longer represent a financial burden on descendants, and in particular on grandchildren,” justify the authors of the text tabled by elected representatives of the majority, including the current Minister of Solidarity, Aurore Bergé. “The family bond must be able to remain above all a privileged link of affection and transmission and be protected from financial difficulties,” the deputies also add.
For elected officials, the maintenance obligation “is, in fact, one of the primary causes of non-use of ASH – while it could be perceived by three quarters of residents in nursing homes, only half of the beneficiaries “potential people are asking for it,” argued the rebellious Martine Étienne, during the debates this Monday. Believing that the article “goes in the right direction”, socialist Christine Pires Beaune noted that “the maintenance obligation incumbent on grandchildren is rarely invoked”. “Regularly, people refuse to enter a nursing home and prefer to give up a place rather than run the risk of seeing their grandchildren financially challenged. This is what article 9 will prevent,” argued the minister, Aurore Bergé.
Elected officials also recalled that the deletion only affected grandchildren and social assistance for accommodation. In addition, the rules vary between departments, causing local disparities. “In border areas, if I may say so, running a nursing home means explaining, on the same day, to one person that an action will be taken against their grandson, to another that this will not be the case,” said argued Modem Laurent Panifous. “There are only 32 departments left that apply the maintenance obligation for grandchildren. […] It is bureaucracy in all its splendor and it is those who are most informed about their rights who are capable of adopting avoidance strategies in matters of social assistance and maintenance obligations” , argued, for his part, the socialist Jérôme Guedj.
Conversely, the right and the flame party spoke out against this modification. The RN defended “family solidarity”: “When our grandparents are in need, it is our duty to assist them: to claim the opposite is to deny the very existence of the family, one of the pillars of the renewal of society,” proclaimed Caroline Colombier. For his part, his colleague (LR) Thibault Bazin called for the maintenance obligation to be defended, in the name of reciprocity: “Grandparents would still be required to help their grandchildren, but the latter would no longer have any “obligation in return,” he said. The right would therefore have preferred to harmonize the rules between departments on the maintenance obligation, rather than removing it, which risks, in its eyes, generating “great fragility in the intergenerational relationship”. Without success.
