CHAPTER 147

2026-04-18

The true depth of affection is only revealed when core interests are at stake. When values diverge, people part ways.

The immediate cause of the brothers’ conflict began within the first week of our mother’s admission to a care home. It came on with unexpected force, and for the following six months, worries constantly disturbed my peace. Once I saw clearly that profit had become everyone’s primary concern, and that our principles no longer aligned, I decided to cut ties. Whatever time I have left in life, I will reserve only for those who truly care.

Here is how it all unfolded.

In early October 2017, my mother developed an infection in her finger and was sent to the emergency department. By the end of the month, her condition remained serious and required full-time care if she was to recover. Admission to a nursing home became necessary.

Arrangements for my parents’ elder care had long been handled by my fourth younger brother, who liaised with the regional health authority. My father had already entrusted him with managing their finances. He reported our mother’s condition and applied for urgent placement, which was approved. She was admitted to a nursing home by the end of November, within a month. At the time, my fifth younger brother felt this arrangement was not in our father’s best interest, fearing he would be left alone at home and suffer from loneliness. I replied that we should first deal with the most urgent matter and handle other issues as they arise.

Shortly afterward, my fifth brother called, asking me to attend a seminar on inheritance funds led by “experts.” It was a new product offered by the investment company where his wife worked; she had just obtained her certification.

He said that for clients under ninety, the investment guaranteed the principal. Our father had only four months before turning ninety, so a quick decision was needed. The estimated annual return was 4% to 4.5%, better than term deposits. Upon a client’s death, the company would issue a cheque so beneficiaries could immediately receive both principal and interest, without waiting and without paying probate.

He proposed that in the future, most of our parents’ savings—and even proceeds from selling their property—could be invested, as long as their quality of life was not affected. Whether they were fully informed, he implied, was not crucial.

His recommendation, which he seemed to believe in wholeheartedly, was in reality nothing more than an aggressive sales pitch, like a door-to-door peddler relentlessly promoting a whitening product. As if the tax authorities would allow opportunists to jump the queue and profit unfairly.

My father had been a modest but cautious small businessman. He never touched stocks or funds and strongly opposed risky, profit-seeking ventures, trusting only in the interest from savings. My parents lived on their savings and government pensions in Canada. My fourth brother had never received instructions from him to invest. As long as they were alive, their assets were their life savings—money meant for their final years—and should not be handled recklessly. Out of respect for his wishes and habits, both my fourth brother and I opposed persuading him to take on high-risk investments.

So I refused on the spot. After the call, I calculated the probate and found the amount limited, and informed him by text. He did not respond.

Skipping over the wave of disturbances, entanglements, and emotional turmoil that followed: after that call and in subsequent interactions, my fourth brother and I felt as though we were dealing with four strangers. We received none of the “appropriate” responses or discussions we had expected.

Several weeks later, I explained to all my brothers in detail why I opposed the proposal, hoping for an open discussion. I had assumed the other three would not be so driven by profit. To my surprise, no one responded. The two elder brothers remained silent, while the fifth and sixth continued raising ideas about renovating the house to increase its value.

Meanwhile, I arranged for my father to move into a retirement residence, which he did in early May 2018. A month later, we suddenly received an email from the second brother, endorsed by the eldest. They had already arranged with our father to change the bank’s power of attorney, replacing the fourth brother entirely with themselves. This new arrangement fully aligned with their profit-driven plans.

For half a year, these four unfilial brothers—an “extra zodiac animal” beyond the twelve—had shown no concern for our parents’ physical or mental well-being, nor for their care. Their sole focus was profit, and they were determined to get it. This confrontation laid bare their values.

They acted behind the backs of my fourth brother and me, without even informing us. It was clearly a black-box operation, hidden from view. They showed no concern for whether our parents could adapt to life in the care home. Preserving and increasing assets came above all else; familial bonds meant nothing to them.

An eye for an eye. From then on, everything would be handled strictly as business. We would go our separate ways.

That night, I reverted to my role as a social worker, gathering information on local services that protect the welfare and rights of the elderly. The next day, I took action and reported the matter to the authorities.

I had never imagined that the brotherly bond I once admired and took pride in during my youth would, in my parents’ old age, prove to be worth less than nothing. Alongside anger and shock came a deep, unresolved disappointment. While recovering from a brain injury, my emotions remained unsettled, and a year later, I suffered an episode of acute depression.

Postscript: All financial entanglements were finally settled two years after my mother’s passing, once the tax authorities had cleared the estate.