• Client Reviews
  • Families & Seniors Blog
  • Contact Us

Olivia K. Smith, Attorney at Law

Helping Families Transition with Dignity

Facebooklinkedinrss
schedule a consultation
  • Home
  • Team Profiles
  • Family Law
    • Divorce
    • Uncontested Divorce
    • Marriage Dissolution
    • Other Family Law Matters
  • Elder Law
    • Estate Planning
    • Long Term Care Planning
    • Medicaid
    • Things to Consider
  • FAQ
  • Resources
    • Long Term Care Planning Guide

Senior Living Facilities Face Staffing Shortage During Coronavirus Pandemic

March 26, 2020Filed Under: Current Events

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Fears that provisions in a coronavirus-related relief action by the US government could have severely curtailed the workforce in senior assisted living, independent living, memory care, and continuing care retirement communities provide a cautionary tale. The bill, HR 6201, is a multi-billion dollar aid package known as Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The bill has recently been signed into law by the US President. Influential leaders, CEOs, and corporate Presidents in the senior care and housing industry addressed facility workforce concerns directly to the House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) before the passing of H.R.6201.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Law expands unemployment and Medicaid benefits, provides for free coronavirus testing, and mandates paid sick leave and childcare. Now that schools have closed throughout the country for an indefinite time, the fear is that many senior care workers will, unsurprisingly, put their family before their healthcare worker employment. A reprieve of sorts was added before the law being enacted, which states that only certain employees can qualify for paid sick leave.  Because of these loopholes, healthcare workers like first responders, and hospital and nursing home staff are ineligible for paid sick leave per the Families First Coronavirus Response Law (FFCRL) amid fears of staffing shortages among medical providers.

Healthcare worker exemption from some FFCRL benefits is a relief to the senior housing industry but by no means mitigates other workforce challenges during the coronavirus pandemic. The pervasiveness of this contagion means that healthcare workers will be exposed to, and some will fall ill with full-blown coronavirus symptoms and illness. Obviously, in these cases, the healthcare worker will be removed from the senior living facility for quarantine and recovery and to protect the facility’s residents and staff. One coronavirus confirmed healthcare worker begins a domino effect within a facility. Regular operations become short-staffed, and operators face the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) protocols that co-workers must also face quarantine.

Beyond coronavirus exposure, symptoms, and the diagnosed virus itself, there is the problem of how healthcare workers respond in a pandemic. The non-stop news and social media coverage of the coronavirus has put many Americans on edge, including health care workers. In a crisis, some people respond logically and calmly, while others may become fearful of their own circumstances and respond emotionally. Most healthcare workers would put their own family’s health needs and care before any employment, and in a free society, there is nothing to compel them to stay in a job if they choose to tend first to their own family.

If your loved one is in a senior living facility, what can you do to mitigate the negative consequences of workforce disruption due to the coronavirus? In the short term, if you are able and your senior is well enough, you can put them under your care. Beyond family care, unless you have the resources for private pay at any cost, you, like the rest of us, are in the system and have to wait out the virus and its effects. There is no guarantee moving forward how the coronavirus will play out in senior living communities, America, and around the world.

One of the few things you do have control over is to assure your loved one has proper legal documents for end of life decisions. Take the time to review them to ensure they are in order. A do not resuscitate order (DNR), durable medical power of attorney, and end of life wishes should be on file with your loved ones living facility and the local hospital. Additional legal copies of these documents should remain in your car or on your person in the event a facility is unable to locate the paperwork. Preparing for the worst-case scenario is a harsh reality; however, it could make the difference between chaotic suffering and a peaceful passing.

We can help draft appropriate documents for you and your loved ones. If you have questions or need guidance in your planning or planning for a loved one, please do not hesitate to contact our Cincinnati, Ohio office by calling us at (513) 771-2444.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Divorce and the Collaborative Process

December 12, 2016Filed Under: Current Events, Dissolution, Divorce, Uncategorized

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

I’ve been watching the show “Divorce” on HBO (Sarah Jessica Parker) fairly religiously because I like HBO and SJP and I also practice family law.

[Spoiler Alert!!]  In the first couple of episodes after divorce became a likely option for the characters, they started down what is often a common way of handling the conflict.    First, they went to mediation and tried to work things out without lawyers.  This show subscribes to a traditional stereotype of a lawyer – that they make everything worse and more expensive. So the characters opted not to go that route “to keep things amicable”. All things I’ve heard before.  Things were going well with mediation.  But then the husband talked to a friend who said he should “lawyer up” to make sure his interests are protected.   So he did that without telling his wife.  When the wife got wind of the husband getting a lawyer, she went for the best, most expensive lawyer in town to one up the husband and make sure her interests were protected.   This caused the husband to panic and decide he needed a “better” lawyer, so he went and hired the dirtiest meanest women-hating lawyer in town to protect his rights.   Then, the wife determined her lawyer was not getting the job done  so she fired him and hired the dirtiest, meanest man-hating lawyer in town to protect her rights.  Meanwhile, the parties were able to co-parent, deal with each other and parties of common friends and go to visit wife’s family for the holidays without the help of their lawyers.   The last scene was the husband being served divorce papers in the middle of coaching his daughter’s basketball game to wife’s surprise.   A recipe for disaster.

We are talking about a TV show so of course there is the usual bit of Hollywood dramatization and exaggeration. However, I would say its a fairly accurate portrayal of how things can go when starting the divorce process.  If these parties had been introduced to the Collaborative Process in the beginning, they may never have completely cut off their chance at an amicable resolution of their issues. Instead, they are spending their hard earned money “one-upping” each other with their lawyers and entering into the process using fear as a tactic.  Wife also managed to humiliate her husband and children in public as icing on the cake.

This is definitely one way to handle your divorce and there are lawyers out there willing to take your money to do it that way.  But usually the end result is not good for either party, especially if children are involved.

By contrast, the Collaborative Process insists that each party has the chance to hire a lawyer of their choice who is trained in the Collaborative Process before any sort of negotiation begins.  The parties hire their lawyers at the outset and can set the tone of their process.   Then, depending on the distinct issues in the case, the attorneys may recommend hiring a family relations specialist and a financial expert to help move the process along.  The process is meant to be a team approach and the lawyers advise on what the party’s interests are so that the party has a frame of reference as to whether they are agreeing to something for or against his/her interest.  Your lawyer is still fully on your side in an advisory position.     If you are interested in this approach to ending your marriage vs. the one described at the beginning of this blog,  contact me to set up a consultation to discuss your options.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

What are the Courts Doing with Gay Marriage? An Update

February 18, 2014Filed Under: Court Cases, Current Events

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Fresh out of Kentucky this week is another federal district court ruling striking down state law which the courts say discriminates against homosexual Americans. What is astounding to some is that this most recent ruling is not even getting front billing on most national news providers. That is likely because it is nothing terribly new. Similar cases from all over the country have been handed down even in some of the US’s most conservative states, like Utah and Oklahoma (see Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. Oklahoma respectively). This kind of stuff gets lawyers excited, not because of their political or moral views one way or the other, but when federal judges start striking down state laws and even portions of state constitutions, we know SCOTUS is going to get involved, and the Supreme Court is not going to be able to resist ruling on this issue for much longer.

What Brought us Here?

The storm of federal suits against alleged same-sex discrimination stems out of two SCOTUS decisions, Windsor and Perry (for an in-depth description of these cases, see https://www.oksmithlaw.com/what-did-the-supreme-court-do-when-they-struck-down-doma/). Last year the Supreme Court struck down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act (Windsor) and simultaneously upheld a California Supreme Court decision that overturned an amendment to the California Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage (Perry). In Windsor, the Court ruled that DOMA discriminates against same-sex couples, and that the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause (which applies only to the Federal Government) prohibits such discrimination. In Perry,  the Supreme Court upheld the California Supreme Court’s ruling that the 14th Amendment (which applies to the states) prohibits same-sex discrimination, but did so on standing grounds (i.e. the plaintiffs did not have standing to appeal the case in the first place, so SCOTUS could not rule on the merits of the case). To put it in colloquial terms, SCOTUS punted the issue.

So Why are the Courts Blowing up with New Cases?

Putting it simply, district federal courts are taking the arguments in Windsor and taking them to (what they feel is) the next logical conclusion. If the Supreme Court says that discriminating against homosexuals is a violation of 5th Amendment Due Process, then isn’t it also violating the 14th Amendment also? The two amendments have language that mirrors one another, and the elephant in the room is that if a form of discrimination is a violation of the 14th Amendment, that discrimination is prohibited in every state. Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Perry, even very correctly predicted this eruption of litigation, pointing out the holes in the majority’s reasoning when they refused to make a 14th Amendment ruling.

What’s Next?

A Supreme Court case is next, that is assuming one of these cases survives appeal in the Circuits. Rarely is there an issue that is so almost certain to reach and be accepted by the high court. The lower court rulings are overturning major legislation, are creating confusion about federal law application from state to state, and are all based on a hole in the law the Court itself left. This is why lawyers are so excited. One way or another, SCOTUS is going to at least partially settle the LGBT discrimination question in the near future. Will the high court only rule on marriage? Labor restrictions? Or will LGBT status be made a protected class in the eyes of the law, something akin to race, gender, or religious affiliation? This blog’s authors will be watching with anticipation.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

And You Thought YOU had it Bad: A Look at China’s One-Child Policy and Recent Relaxations

November 18, 2013Filed Under: Current Events

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

In family law we deal with clients that are going through probably the worst period of their lives, and do our very best to minimize the damage and help them rebuild healthy productive lives. I joke with my friends in transactional law about how placid their work is compared to mine. “You mean the contract may fall through and X company may not be able to tout their new project by the next annual shareholders meeting? My clients only have the custody of their children at stake, but your client REALLY has it bad” said no one ever. Still, it is important to keep things in perspective. Some of our clients may have the custody of their children at stake, but no matter what happens, they will not be declared criminals and fined should they have more than one child. This article will look at the Chinese policy that has made the news recently because of the Chinese government’s relaxation of what is commonly known as the “One-child policy,” discuss the policy’s controversies and supposed benefits, and outline the changes purportedly being made.

The Policy

Within the People’s Republic of China (not to be confused with the Republic of China, more commonly known as Taiwan), families in a large minority of the population are subject to strict implementation of a law restricting them to only having one child. Families who have twins are not penalized. Families may also apply to have a second child, but are usually only permitted if their first child was a girl or was physically or mentally handicapped. Semi-autonomous regions (such as Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet), as well has foreigners living in China are also immune from the policy, leaving a little over a third of the population subject to strict-implementation. Violators of the policy are subject to a large annual fine, known as the shèhuì fǔyǎngfèi, or social fostering fee, that usually represents a large portion of their income, and the extra child is usually not eligible for any state benefits, including education.

Criticism

Western nations and scholars have generally harshly criticized the policy for a number of reasons. More libertarian countries like the United States across the board find the policy an abhorrent interference with a fundamental right of human beings to procreate. Other criticisms point to the markedly negative effects of the policy, including the considerable sex-based birth rate disparity in the PRC. For every 100 girls born in China, 115-120 boys are born. This is most likely due to selective abortion practices, and allegedly to a lesser extent abandonment, adoptions, and infanticide. Restriction to only one child also arguably exacerbates what some consider to be sexist aspects of conservative interpretations of Confucianism.

Effect

The policy was of course implemented as a result of China’s population boom crisis of the 1960s,70s, and 80s which left the population greatly vulnerable in years of famine,  so vulnerable in fact it was the basis for a wonderfully stereotypical (and probably somewhat racist) gimmick American parents used to use to guilt children into eating their food, which has since fallen out of style (see e.g. the film “A Christmas Story”). Estimates vary greatly as to the effectiveness of the policy, but approximately 100 (according to critics) to 400 (according to the Chinese government) million persons were not born as a result of the policy. The purported benefits of the policy on top of lessoning the possibility of famine include reductions in other problems associated with overpopulation such as the spread of disease, slums, and crime rates. Social services are also not overwhelmed, and families limited to only one child can use the funds that would otherwise be used for the children on things like improving their standard of living, and investment.

Relaxation of the Policy

Chinese officials officially announced this week that Chinese families with at least one parent that is an only child may have a second child themselves. This in effect allows the two youngest adult generations to have two children if their parents in turn honored the policy. Communist party leaders have also indicated their willingness to relax the shèhuì fǔyǎngfèi, but no concrete commitment has been made.

Conclusion

This article has hopefully been more educative than admonishing. I, like probably most Americans find the People’s Republic of China’s family planning laws to be unacceptable restrictions to fundamental human liberties, but then again I grew up in a country with a five times higher per-capita income rate with one quarter of the people within a land mass approximately equal in size. My perspective is somewhat different. However you the reader feel about the realities outlined in this article, always remember that all these problems we have in the First World, are just that, First World problems.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail
« Previous Page
Next Page »

Contact Us

Olivia K. Smith, Attorney at Law
Cornetet, Meyer, Rush & Stapleton Co., L.P.A.
123 Boggs Lane,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Tel: (513) 771-2444
Fax: (877) 483-2119
Email us

Recent Posts

  • An Estate Plan Should Include a Family LLC
  • Children With Special Needs: Managing Their Money Over Their Lifetime
  • Medicaid: Five Years of Looking Back Without Penalties
  • Your Possessions Are Part of Your Memories
  • Why You Should Take Your Social Security Benefit Early

Blog Categories

  • Asset Protection
  • Child Custody
  • Child Support
  • Court Cases
  • Current Events
  • Dissolution
  • Divorce
  • Education
  • Elder Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Events
  • Long Term Care
  • Medicaid Planning
  • Misc Advice
  • Post Divorce/Custody Issues
  • Property Division
  • Senior Health and Wellness
  • Senior Living
  • Special Needs
  • Spousal Support
  • Taxes
  • Uncategorized

WE ACCEPT CREDIT CARDS

READ REVIEWS ON AVVO

Olivia Kathleen SmithReviewsout of 8 reviews

Affiliated with Cornetet, Meyer, Rush & Stapleton Co., L.P.A.

Olivia K. Smith, Attorney at Law
Cornetet, Meyer, Rush & Stapleton
123 Boggs Lane
Cincinnati, OH 45246
Phone: 513-771-2444
Fax: 877-483-2119
oksmith@cmrs-law.com

Family Law Attorney Olivia K. Smith, LLC represent clients in Cincinnati, Anderson Township, Batavia, Loveland, Mason, Milford and other communities in Hamilton County, Clermont County, Butler County and Warren County.

Disclaimer: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. I invite you to contact me and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting me does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to me until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

Copyright © 2022 · Olivia K. Smith · Privacy Policy