Agree. Although it doesn't make complete sense to me and raises more questions. If OP's husband thought this was a chance to build a relationship with the cousin, did that actually happen over Thanksgiving, or did they stay on other sides of the table and the room? And what about getting a heads-up about this cousin coming to future events would prevent OP and her husband from deciding to attend these future events, if OP's husband wants to? It's just a heads-up, not a ban. |
It broke him because he got caught. |
Are you drunk? |
Enough trolling , op. You've overplayed your hand |
No. They are correct. |
OK, sub my word for exactly what OP wrote. Everything else stands. |
Not wrong. Not their place. |
You know, it's pretty clear that the relationship between OP's family and her husband's parents is at least cordial enough that they are invited to Thanksgiving and Christmas. It is not outside the realm of what is socially normal and expected to review who is attending those events with guests, either in conversation (e.g., "oh Jack called, he'll be in Fresno over Thanksgiving so we invited him and he'll be joining") or intentionally because of "the situation" (e.g., "We wanted to let you know that Jack will be coming to Thanksgiving this year - he's in the area and we're happy to have him. Please let us know if this changes your plans.") I agree that you need to dial back the drama. This isn't your life. |
Even if the inlaws could have or should have given this "heads up" do you think that the OP was in the right to talk to them about it at the event and without talking to her DH first to get his view? |
I'm not OP, you can ask the moderator. |
Look. You obviously have made a choice to see your husband in the best possible light, and have done so for the entirety of your relationship. But you can't erase what happened. And your husband didn't get fired from a school district job for an accusation - he was either convicted of a crime and/or lied about/concealed the charge from his employer. Your in-laws have obviously decided they are tired of not having a relationship with this part of the family - OVER THEIR OWN SON. I am sorry, but this is called living with consequences. And I don't know how old your kids are but there will come a time that your husband will have to explain his actions to them. I highly recommend that the explanation be the truth and a lesson about lasting consequences for one's actions (especially those of an adult man, My God), responsibility, attitudes and actions towards women, and that some things can't be undone no matter how much you want them to be. Your in-laws have told the absolute truth to you here. You can isolate yourselves in your continued denial or deal with this ugly reality. |
Oh, 100% OP was not right - in any of this. She was extremely wrong to talk to them about it AT the event and without talking to her husband about it first. She's absolutely wrong expecting a notification, and it sounds like the in-laws didn't give an inch of ground (informed them that "Jack" will be at Christmas, so they should plan accordingly). I think that the in-laws' notification probably could have avoided the Thanksgiving problem. OP could have avoided the Thanksgiving problem as well by not doing what she did at TG. But in point of fact, OP could have avoided the whole problem by not marrying someone who recently did time for sex crimes. |
+1. Yes, OP's husband is going to have to accept pariah status in his work and social life--and with cause. But consigning the entire family to the dustheap of familial relations, to the point where they're not even allowed to know simple things like who else is coming to Thanksgiving, seems deliberately cruel. |
Sockpuppeting is pathetic |
| Man! Everyone is having such normal conversations about this situation. In some cultures, OP's husband would have been stoned to death. |