Every ward has one.  (Oftentimes, more than one...)

Charity 'black holes'.

Just like real black holes that suck in all forms of light and don't release anything out again, a "charity black hole" in the Church is a person or family that constantly consumes resources, charity, and service from other church members without ever offering anything back.

In our ward, there was "Dorothy".  (Names are changed, obviously...)   "Dorothy" joined the Church after being "strongly encouraged" to by her member husband, but was never active at any time...especially after her husband unilaterally left her for another woman, leaving her with two kids, ages 4 and 2.  Her only contact with the Church came when she needed something.

The Church, of course, has a welfare system that is used to support those who are in need.   In Dorothy's case, the Church--through the bishop--arranged to pay for an apartment for her and her kids and have weekly food from the bishop's storehouse provided to her.  The Relief Society president at the time (my wife) handled her requests for food, and all other forms of service, including rides, babysitting, and donations of clothes and toys.

When asked, Dorothy was upfront about having no plans on finding a job, nor of going to school, nor of doing anything but living with her kids off of Church welfare for as long as she can.   She also had no plans of attending or participating in church activity any more than before--her only contact with Church members came when she wants something from them, with--in "The Baroness's" own words--remarkably little sense of self-consciousness or embarrassment about it:

Here's the fact of the matter, though: don't we need 'charity black holes' like Dorothy, though, in order to truly understand the principle of charity in the first place?

No one wants people like Dorothy, of course:  no one wants broken families with young kids that need direct support in the first place, nor even then, not people who take and take and take without even pretending to be working towards self-sufficiency, or being a participating member of the religious community that's supporting them to begin with.

No one questions Dorothy's tough lot in life.  She certainly didn't choose to be abandoned with two young kids.   And she certainly qualifies as "one of the least of these my brethren".   And the Church certainly has enough resources so that giving her what amounts to free food and lodging isn't going to bankrupt the ward, nor take anything away from anyone else.

Welfare, on either a national or Church level, inherently presents a double-edged sword:  Providing welfare means those in need have resources to allow them to survive...but its existence also gives people the reverse incentive not to become self-sufficient.   (For all the talk about "giving a man a fish, versus teaching him to fish", why spend the effort to fish even if you know how, when people are just handing out free fish over there, anyway...)

Not providing welfare (or limiting it) keeps that incentive to provide for yourself in play...but means those who are truly needy often won't get the things they require.  Since there's no way of getting one side without the other, all welfare proposals and programs run into this same fundamental conflict--how to provide what people need, when the existence of welfare programs in the first place changes behavior for the worse.

Everyone knows the Church is going to err on the side of compassion when it comes to welfare--from the perspective of available resources and scriptural admonitions, the choice is obvious.   People like Dorothy--while not ideal--are necessary, though, for the Church on a personal and administrative level to reinforce the underlying principles behind the welfare program in the first place.   Do we care enough about all of God's children that we're willing to give to people like Dorothy without reservation?

The fact of the matter is: it's easy to serve and show charity towards people you like. It's the serving of people you don't like or who do things you don't approve of, but nevertheless are still needy that shows how well the true definition of charity has been internalized.  A lot of people think of themselves as 'charitable' when they, in fact, are only charitable towards those they care about, or meet specific standards of behavior.

"Black holes", though, represent important test cases:  are we still willing to give even to people who (a) don't "deserve" it, (b) don't "appreciate" it, and/or (c) will never end up changing or giving anything back to anyone else in the end.   That's fundamentally what true charity is, and if so, then charity 'black holes' are a necessary and unavoidable part of spiritual development.