S/O Elder care for parents who didn't provide child care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine that her unwillingness to help out with her grandchild feels like a rejection, so I'm sure it stings. Just make sure you're on the same page with your husband. He needs to take the lead on managing her expectations for the future. You will only sound bitter if it comes from you.

He's definitely going to be the one to handle this. I responded once to her hints about living with us because she kept making them to me when we were one on one. She clearly knows she has crapped the bed with me and was trying to figure out if I might one day object to them living with us. Beyond that, their retirement is none of my concern and I won't be discussing it further with her.

To answer other PPs' questions, DH has three brothers but none have a pot to piss in. They live beyond their means just like my in laws do and actually look to my in laws for help.

That's too bad. It sounds like you and your husband definitely need to set expectations, not only for his parents, but also for the brothers when they pass. My sister is facing a similar situation with her husband's family. In their case, they've agreed on a certain amount of money he can give his family every year and he can distribute it however he likes. They've made it crystal clear that nobody is coming to live with them. I'm not sure how that will play out if either of his parents become truly ill and indigent, but that is the plan at this point. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Consensus in the thread asking why grandparents no longer provide child care seems to be that grandparents don't owe their kids and grandkids squat. Okay, I can agree with that. But is the reverse true?

DH's parents live close enough to help with our daughter and his mother is a lifelong SAHM. She is only 59, but prefers to keep her schedule open to watch TV all day, travel a few times a year, and make gossipy phone calls. So, we pay for child care and it is really eating into our finances. I am fine with this. Our kid, our problem.

Here's the rub: DH's parents have zero in retirement savings. Social security and DH's Dad working until he dies is what they are banking on. I make a good amount of money (more than DH) and kill myself to earn it. DH's mother has started dropping hints lately about how nice it would be for us all to move in together one day. They don't have jack shit to contribute, so I know DH and I would be basically carrying them financially, with the bulk coming from me. That is what DH's mother is after.

Recently, she made a joke about living with us and I responded with a grin: "Paying for child care is eating through the money we'd have helped you with." She dropped the topic quickly. I don't think I owe her and FIL squat. She has spent her life as she pleases, staying home instead of building financial security by working, not giving a red cent to DH for college because thinks kids are responsible for their own education, and refusing to help with her grandkid because she would rather catch up on talk shows. Am I wrong? I think DH will go along with what I decide.

IMO, her job was done when she finished raising her OWN child. There is no obligation for any grandparent to babysit their grandkids, pay for their education etc. Those things are up to parents, not grandparents.

Yes, I do think if you are able to you help her out if she needs it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You owe them because they gave you your DH and DC. Yes, you need to find a way to take care of them if and when the time comes.

Unless there's some new infertility treatment I don't know about, I'm pretty sure grand parents don't give birth to their grand children.

They gave your husband life. Without him your child wouldn't exist yea you owe them. Big time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

IMO, her job was done when she finished raising her OWN child. There is no obligation for any grandparent to babysit their grandkids, pay for their education etc. Those things are up to parents, not grandparents.

Yes, I do think if you are able to you help her out if she needs it.

I like this. No responsibility, but people should line your pockets. You must be another lazy MIL.

[Anonymous]

OP - Be prepared to pay the funeral costs for your MIL and FIL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IMO, her job was done when she finished raising her OWN child. There is no obligation for any grandparent to babysit their grandkids, pay for their education etc. Those things are up to parents, not grandparents.

Yes, I do think if you are able to you help her out if she needs it.

I like this. No responsibility, but people should line your pockets. You must be another lazy MIL.

Or the lazy husband! Don't forget, he took out student loans that OP had to pay back, and he loafs around while she earns the money in the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consensus in the thread asking why grandparents no longer provide child care seems to be that grandparents don't owe their kids and grandkids squat. Okay, I can agree with that. But is the reverse true?

DH's parents live close enough to help with our daughter and his mother is a lifelong SAHM. She is only 59, but prefers to keep her schedule open to watch TV all day, travel a few times a year, and make gossipy phone calls. So, we pay for child care and it is really eating into our finances. I am fine with this. Our kid, our problem.

Here's the rub: DH's parents have zero in retirement savings. Social security and DH's Dad working until he dies is what they are banking on. I make a good amount of money (more than DH) and kill myself to earn it. DH's mother has started dropping hints lately about how nice it would be for us all to move in together one day. They don't have jack shit to contribute, so I know DH and I would be basically carrying them financially, with the bulk coming from me. That is what DH's mother is after.

Recently, she made a joke about living with us and I responded with a grin: "Paying for child care is eating through the money we'd have helped you with." She dropped the topic quickly. I don't think I owe her and FIL squat. She has spent her life as she pleases, staying home instead of building financial security by working, not giving a red cent to DH for college because thinks kids are responsible for their own education, and refusing to help with her grandkid because she would rather catch up on talk shows. Am I wrong? I think DH will go along with what I decide.

IMO, her job was done when she finished raising her OWN child. There is no obligation for any grandparent to babysit their grandkids, pay for their education etc. Those things are up to parents, not grandparents.

Yes, I do think if you are able to you help her out if she needs it.

But the IL family didn't help pay for education even though it sounds like they could have helped a bit. If MIL doesn't even get a job or try to help herself out financially, why should her son and his family be the ones to pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lmao @ people invoking what the kids are learning. GTFOH. The kids aren't served by watching freeloaders move in and use family without contributing. That is a terrible life lesson.

The kids won't see Grandma and Grandpa as freeloaders, though... they won't know the whole story because no one wants to paint their own parents in that light. The kids will just see that grandma and grandpa seem to be poor, live in a place that doesn't look nice and their own family doesn't seem to be helping

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is perfectly reasonable. I would feel exactly the same in her position. Just because people are family does not mean you have to sacrifice your life to help them when all their lives they have done nothing but the bare minimum to help. If they need a few thousand dollars for an operation or some such then yes, you have an obligation. But to have them live with you, potentially for decades, because they have failed to provide for themselves when they had every opportunity? No way.
Even if this woman does not want to provide childcare, her own kids have been out of the house for how long? 20 years? She could easily get a job herself in retail or whatever. It isn't like CVS appears to be particularly picky. But she is lazy. What goes around comes around.

Best answer yet. This woman is 59, so her kids have been been out of the house for at least 10 years, probably longer. She is still relatively young. Yet she chooses not to work, and sounds like she is stingy as hell with her husbands money. So no, the her son is not obligated to take care of her, but her daughter inlaw is definitely not obligated to take care of her. The mil sounds like a moocher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lmao @ people invoking what the kids are learning. GTFOH. The kids aren't served by watching freeloaders move in and use family without contributing. That is a terrible life lesson.

The kids won't see Grandma and Grandpa as freeloaders, though... they won't know the whole story because no one wants to paint their own parents in that light. The kids will just see that grandma and grandpa seem to be poor, live in a place that doesn't look nice and their own family doesn't seem to be helping

Nah, you're pulling that out of your ass to make your point. Are you someone's broke in law? My grandparents lived off in a poor part of town until they died and after spending a little time with them as a kid, I totally got why. They had no sense of money management and were bitter assholes. Kids aren't as stupid as the "think of the children!" crew would have others believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IMO, her job was done when she finished raising her OWN child. There is no obligation for any grandparent to babysit their grandkids, pay for their education etc. Those things are up to parents, not grandparents.

Yes, I do think if you are able to you help her out if she needs it.

I like this. No responsibility, but people should line your pockets. You must be another lazy MIL.

Or the lazy husband! Don't forget, he took out student loans that OP had to pay back, and he loafs around while she earns the money in the family.

DH doesn't loaf; he just earns less. He works hard, but his field is lower paying than mine. I paid off his student loans because I made way more and it didn't make sense for him to keep struggling to pay the principal after meeting interest when we could extinguish the debt sooner.

-OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consensus in the thread asking why grandparents no longer provide child care seems to be that grandparents don't owe their kids and grandkids squat. Okay, I can agree with that. But is the reverse true?

DH's parents live close enough to help with our daughter and his mother is a lifelong SAHM. She is only 59, but prefers to keep her schedule open to watch TV all day, travel a few times a year, and make gossipy phone calls. So, we pay for child care and it is really eating into our finances. I am fine with this. Our kid, our problem.

Here's the rub: DH's parents have zero in retirement savings. Social security and DH's Dad working until he dies is what they are banking on. I make a good amount of money (more than DH) and kill myself to earn it. DH's mother has started dropping hints lately about how nice it would be for us all to move in together one day. They don't have jack shit to contribute, so I know DH and I would be basically carrying them financially, with the bulk coming from me. That is what DH's mother is after.

Recently, she made a joke about living with us and I responded with a grin: "Paying for child care is eating through the money we'd have helped you with." She dropped the topic quickly. I don't think I owe her and FIL squat. She has spent her life as she pleases, staying home instead of building financial security by working, not giving a red cent to DH for college because thinks kids are responsible for their own education, and refusing to help with her grandkid because she would rather catch up on talk shows. Am I wrong? I think DH will go along with what I decide.

IMO, her job was done when she finished raising her OWN child. There is no obligation for any grandparent to babysit their grandkids, pay for their education etc. Those things are up to parents, not grandparents.

Yes, I do think if you are able to you help her out if she needs it.

But the IL family didn't help pay for education even though it sounds like they could have helped a bit. If MIL doesn't even get a job or try to help herself out financially, why should her son and his family be the ones to pay?

How is this even a question? They could help because family is important, because we don't necessarily need to punish others for making mistakes, because none of us is perfect and because people are kind and compassionate. I give time and resources to people who have made bad decisions all the time through my volunteer work. I don't consider it an imposition; it's a blessing to have enough to share. I can't imagine living in a family where we are weighing credits and debits on who did more to help the other one out. My husband's parents are my parents, too, for better or for worse. That's how family works for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is perfectly reasonable. I would feel exactly the same in her position. Just because people are family does not mean you have to sacrifice your life to help them when all their lives they have done nothing but the bare minimum to help. If they need a few thousand dollars for an operation or some such then yes, you have an obligation. But to have them live with you, potentially for decades, because they have failed to provide for themselves when they had every opportunity? No way.
Even if this woman does not want to provide childcare, her own kids have been out of the house for how long? 20 years? She could easily get a job herself in retail or whatever. It isn't like CVS appears to be particularly picky. But she is lazy. What goes around comes around.

Best answer yet. This woman is 59, so her kids have been been out of the house for at least 10 years, probably longer. She is still relatively young. Yet she chooses not to work, and sounds like she is stingy as hell with her husbands money. So no, the her son is not obligated to take care of her, but her daughter inlaw is definitely not obligated to take care of her. The mil sounds like a moocher.

Yup, MIL and FIL had kids relatively young and close in age, so the last kid went to college 14 years ago. Once he was in college, they didn't do shit for him so they definitely couldn't invoke him as the reason MIL didn't work. Honestly, she could have gone back to work waaay before that, but enjoyed taking it easy. As she likes to say, "you get only one life" (I guess the part she doesn't say is "so live it at the expense of others").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But the IL family didn't help pay for education even though it sounds like they could have helped a bit. If MIL doesn't even get a job or try to help herself out financially, why should her son and his family be the ones to pay?

How is this even a question? They could help because family is important, because we don't necessarily need to punish others for making mistakes, because none of us is perfect and because people are kind and compassionate. I give time and resources to people who have made bad decisions all the time through my volunteer work. I don't consider it an imposition; it's a blessing to have enough to share. I can't imagine living in a family where we are weighing credits and debits on who did more to help the other one out. My husband's parents are my parents, too, for better or for worse. That's how family works for us.

It's too bad we all can't rise to your level. No doubt you'd empty your pockets to help out your lazy, entitled in law who never helped you with anything when she could. You are just that sweet and we are so glad you are here to moralize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lmao @ people invoking what the kids are learning. GTFOH. The kids aren't served by watching freeloaders move in and use family without contributing. That is a terrible life lesson.

The kids won't see Grandma and Grandpa as freeloaders, though... they won't know the whole story because no one wants to paint their own parents in that light. The kids will just see that grandma and grandpa seem to be poor, live in a place that doesn't look nice and their own family doesn't seem to be helping

+1

My mom was neglectful and narcissistic, but my son loves her (we live far away and she is more or less OK when he sees her - when he was little, I would never leave her alone with him). She has enough money so that her finances are not an issue (in fact she has given some money for his college fund - makes her look good!). My dad was abusive and she ignored the abuse (he is dead now).

It is hard for me to visit my mom - I would prefer to never see her again, but she is my son's grandma and if I expelled her from my life (even if I explained why), I think that would be a life lesson for my son that he does not need to take care of his elders.