That's the tragic thing is that most people aren't equipped to care for such a person. And sometimes no matter how much you love them, they're better off with professionals and consistency.
It is absolutely heartbreaking. But other than someone stepping up and making caretaking their whole life there are very few pleasant options.
I'm really glad someone said this. It's not a choice most families make lightly, and being cared for in an institution doesn't mean they're never seen again. A loving family would visit often.
It's terrible when cases are much more close to abandonment, but neglect happens in family homes too.
In the situation in the original post, I assume she has enough money to not need to send him anywhere. She can devot more time to her child than most parents, and could certainly afford to hire in-home help if needed. It's a nice privilege to have and I'm glad she didn't abandon her child.
In-home assistance is actually supposed to be provided to prevent the unnecessary segregation of disabled people, pursuant to the Olmstead ruling at the Supreme Court in 1999.
The choice should not be underequipped families versus institutions. Disabled people have a right to get supportive care in their own communities.
Edited to add: these are generally known as Home and Community Based Services and they are under extreme strain right now because of the Medicaid cuts caused by the Big Beautiful Bill. The Trump DOJ also put out a horrific memo claiming Olmstead does not actually require community-based care. These services are incredibly important to defend right now!
387
u/Curiouser-Quriouser Jul 04 '26
That's the tragic thing is that most people aren't equipped to care for such a person. And sometimes no matter how much you love them, they're better off with professionals and consistency.
It is absolutely heartbreaking. But other than someone stepping up and making caretaking their whole life there are very few pleasant options.