My sympathies lie with her.
Why?
Such homes - which need to be profitable (which means that the quality of care may be sacrificed to the need to generate a profit for shareholders, especially if they are owned by a large company), are full of false cheer, hideous group activities, enforced socialisation, and a place that is most manifestly "not yours", but somewhere where you are on sufferance (and at the mercy of staff, not to mention kin) are nothing but an absolute nightmare for individuals who are introverted by nature, and have prized their independence - physical, professional, financial, psychological - and their autonomy all of their lives.
And it is also a common pattern for some people to enter homes and die (because they have given up, feel abandoned and of no worth) very shortly afterwards.
Now, this sentence does bother me.
What "inheritance"?
It is not an inheritance until the person who possesses them, owns them, calls them their own, actually dies and the beneficiaries inherit the estate.
Who actually owns - and has the right to dispose of howsoever they like - while they live - what you refer to as "the inheritance"?
Until then, until the person whose assets these are - and until that happens these are assets, in essence, the fruit of a lifetime's work on the part of the person who owns them - actually dies - or, is deemed no longer competent to control their assets (in which case they should be used solely for the benefit of the person in question), - these remains the assets, the estate, of the individual who owns them, and not their offspring.
Indeed.
Maybe I'm old school, but I think that in so far as possible, people should be supported in their desire to retain their independence for as long as is possible.
Anyway, I agree with the posts written by
@HobeSoundDarryl.