so. what i'm hearing is your mother in law didn't liquidate her assets because she had family who was able & willing to quit her job in order to care for her. like... yes, i imagine she didn't. why would she do it if she had another choice? this person evidently does not have a family member who's willing to be a fulltime caretaker, & also is presumably not willing to liquidate her (likely pretty considerable) assets. that preference actually doesn't entitle her to exploitative nearly uncompensated round-the-clock care because the family would rather hang onto her wealth than pay someone appropriately/legally for the services they're unable or unwilling to provide themselves. i'm not sure what the confusion is here. this is a MINIMUM million dollar home, there are four children, they've all gone to expensive colleges, & the one that posted this listing graduated from harvard. i'm probably gonna save my sympathies for the underclass in this particular equation.