Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
9 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rockige
1 year ago

Na logo.

If the action came through, what’s next?

Better now, a shot in front of the bug (quasi)… when it comes to more and more.

Besides – who of the family could still trust this person would leave him/her in the house?

Rendric
1 year ago

My first impulse response was also: Yes, I would.

But I don’t think that’s right. If I see options that can solve within the family, for example with deadlines, repay everything, withdraw the card and other services, then I would prefer that. If insight and repentance is there, I would try to find a common way to make the damage good again.

Without this basis: ad!

mesieleinchen
1 year ago

Yeah, I’d report it. Dementia patients must enjoy special protection. And care must include everything, so quickly the name should not happen. WER is supposed to protect Demente if not relatives to whom you used to trust? Nobody wants to be accused and robbed and betrayed as a dementer! Always remember: you can become a dement, and before you get old…

CliffBaxter
1 year ago

This is difficult because the question is to what extent this dementia-sick parent is still capable of business. Maybe we’re talking about things and really can’t differ from wrong anymore. The person(s) required a trusted authorized person who would examine the facts for them, clarify them and use them to safeguard their rights.

Fragenwuerfel
1 year ago

Report. Enterbs. Excommunicate. Bless. Everything. Bam!

Nordseefan
1 year ago

Puh, heavy. I was trying to answer clearly. I think you can only say that if you’re in the situation.

I could imagine putting a FRist to the child until when it has to do the damage again – but then nothing would I think I would show

SchakKlusoh
1 year ago

Easy: YES!

Stellwerk
1 year ago

Jupp.