And what constitutional principle do you think is offended by this fine-grained distinction? Indefinite support violates some due process principle, but eighteen years of support doesn't?
What part of the Constitution permits filal laws?
Fundamentally, there is no difference between making John pay for his dad’s bills, and making John pay for a complete stranger’s bills. But obviously legislation stating that “in the event that an elderly person cannot pay their bills, a random resident of the state shall be made responsible for payment” would be considered unconstitutional.
They are state laws, so the Constitution would need to be found to
forbid them. Otherwise, it's presumed to be permissible. States have police power.
