bedknobs, the story is pretty muddled. I suspect that the suggestion about Mr remaining at home was made early on in the process. If he had remained at home, the value of the house would have been set aside until he died so the council would have contributed more to the care of the wife, and probably more to the care of the husband in terms of visiting carers. Addtionally depending on how the house was owned, any financial assessment would have been much more beneficial to the couple. I really really understand why the family acted as they did but it might not have been the best thing to have done and from the subtext of the article, it seems as though this might have been pointed out to them at the time. I have known situations like this where the non resident partner has spent everyday at the care home, only going home to sleep. The cost is less (much less) than full residence but is not covered by council payments......of course it may not have been available at this home.