Blindsided by in-laws inviting random cousin to Thanksgiving gathering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so confused why the husband thinks he is going to be able to reconnect with this cousin??? Does the cousin want anything to do with this guy???

Probably not, but relatives are getting older and won’t be around forever and the cousin is tired of missing out on being part of the family because the pervert who groomed his sister is around. He seems willing to let it go as the rest of the family has for the sake of spending time with relatives.

Maybe the in laws like the cousin more than the son. I've unfortunately known a few people with child molester backgrounds and they aren't exactly the family favorite especially after dragging everyone through it.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like you're the "random" people, not the cousin, in this situation. Recommend vetting out your welcome with hosts (and their guests, and families) more fully going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so confused why the husband thinks he is going to be able to reconnect with this cousin??? Does the cousin want anything to do with this guy???

Probably not, but relatives are getting older and won’t be around forever and the cousin is tired of missing out on being part of the family because the pervert who groomed his sister is around. He seems willing to let it go as the rest of the family has for the sake of spending time with relatives.

It’s neither here nor there, but I’m confused as to why the cousin prefers to spend both holidays, Thanksgiving and Christmas, with OP’s in-laws instead of with his own parents, younger sister, or other siblings. If everybody on his side is dead then it’s obvious. None of this is to disparage the cousin who behaved honorably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP is concerned about her DH being around these cousins because of the chance they make more “unfounded” accusations. For all we know, the penpal letters might truly have been fine, but maybe the cousin didn’t like the situation because of the DH’s upskirt history. And the cousin reported DH’s criminal history to the school where he was he was employed and got him fired (which is odd—how did the school not run a background check? Why did the parol officer not find him in violation of his parol terms if it was a problem?). The DH clearly did something wrong with the photos but it’s hard to know if that intent extended to the girl cousin. OP can’t seem to be objective about what her DH did and how others in the family may view it—rightly or wrongly. Because she can’t be objective, she views the accusations as unfounded which might lead to concerns about more accusations if they see the cousins or maybe there’s some lingering anger toward the cousin and OP doesn’t want to be around them. Regardless, this is DH’s call to make and OP shouldn’t have gone to the in-laws asking for a heads up in the future.

The cousin in question was a tween at the time this happened, per the original post. You are acting like the cousin was an adult who read inappropriate intent where there was none and then went to the school with them to get OP’s husband fired. More likely the tween found letters to his younger sister (who was at most a tween herself) that were very clearly inappropriate if a tween felt the need to show them to an adult. Moreover, if those letters were what lead to the investigation that turned up the upskirting photos on his computer, it is very likely that the letters were sufficiently concerning to law enforcement that they were investigating him for preying on minors. We don’t know what he was convicted of, or if he might have plead guilty to a lesser charge of voyeurism in order to avoid trial on more serious charges. A year in prison is a pretty harsh sentence for someone who did nothing more than take a few upskirt photos, even if one of them was a 17 year old.

Side note, if the 17 yo was some random person that the husband had no way of knowing was 17, how did law enforcement figure it out? There are a lot of these details in OP’s story that don’t make sense, which suggests she is burying the severity of what he actually did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP is concerned about her DH being around these cousins because of the chance they make more “unfounded” accusations. For all we know, the penpal letters might truly have been fine, but maybe the cousin didn’t like the situation because of the DH’s upskirt history. And the cousin reported DH’s criminal history to the school where he was he was employed and got him fired (which is odd—how did the school not run a background check? Why did the parol officer not find him in violation of his parol terms if it was a problem?). The DH clearly did something wrong with the photos but it’s hard to know if that intent extended to the girl cousin. OP can’t seem to be objective about what her DH did and how others in the family may view it—rightly or wrongly. Because she can’t be objective, she views the accusations as unfounded which might lead to concerns about more accusations if they see the cousins or maybe there’s some lingering anger toward the cousin and OP doesn’t want to be around them. Regardless, this is DH’s call to make and OP shouldn’t have gone to the in-laws asking for a heads up in the future.

The cousin in question was a tween at the time this happened, per the original post. You are acting like the cousin was an adult who read inappropriate intent where there was none and then went to the school with them to get OP’s husband fired. More likely the tween found letters to his younger sister (who was at most a tween herself) that were very clearly inappropriate if a tween felt the need to show them to an adult. Moreover, if those letters were what lead to the investigation that turned up the upskirting photos on his computer, it is very likely that the letters were sufficiently concerning to law enforcement that they were investigating him for preying on minors. We don’t know what he was convicted of, or if he might have plead guilty to a lesser charge of voyeurism in order to avoid trial on more serious charges. A year in prison is a pretty harsh sentence for someone who did nothing more than take a few upskirt photos, even if one of them was a 17 year old.

Side note, if the 17 yo was some random person that the husband had no way of knowing was 17, how did law enforcement figure it out? There are a lot of these details in OP’s story that don’t make sense, which suggests she is burying the severity of what he actually did.

Your questioning whether it is possible for law enforcement to determine the identity of a victim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP is concerned about her DH being around these cousins because of the chance they make more “unfounded” accusations. For all we know, the penpal letters might truly have been fine, but maybe the cousin didn’t like the situation because of the DH’s upskirt history. And the cousin reported DH’s criminal history to the school where he was he was employed and got him fired (which is odd—how did the school not run a background check? Why did the parol officer not find him in violation of his parol terms if it was a problem?). The DH clearly did something wrong with the photos but it’s hard to know if that intent extended to the girl cousin. OP can’t seem to be objective about what her DH did and how others in the family may view it—rightly or wrongly. Because she can’t be objective, she views the accusations as unfounded which might lead to concerns about more accusations if they see the cousins or maybe there’s some lingering anger toward the cousin and OP doesn’t want to be around them. Regardless, this is DH’s call to make and OP shouldn’t have gone to the in-laws asking for a heads up in the future.

The cousin in question was a tween at the time this happened, per the original post. You are acting like the cousin was an adult who read inappropriate intent where there was none and then went to the school with them to get OP’s husband fired. More likely the tween found letters to his younger sister (who was at most a tween herself) that were very clearly inappropriate if a tween felt the need to show them to an adult. Moreover, if those letters were what lead to the investigation that turned up the upskirting photos on his computer, it is very likely that the letters were sufficiently concerning to law enforcement that they were investigating him for preying on minors. We don’t know what he was convicted of, or if he might have plead guilty to a lesser charge of voyeurism in order to avoid trial on more serious charges. A year in prison is a pretty harsh sentence for someone who did nothing more than take a few upskirt photos, even if one of them was a 17 year old.

Side note, if the 17 yo was some random person that the husband had no way of knowing was 17, how did law enforcement figure it out? There are a lot of these details in OP’s story that don’t make sense, which suggests she is burying the severity of what he actually did.

Your questioning whether it is possible for law enforcement to determine the identity of a victim?

Yes, unless 17 to caught him in the act and filed a complaint, I am questioning how law enforcement was able to identify a random unknown woman from a photo up her skirt to determine she was 17. If the 17 yo did not catch him in the act, I suspect the 17 yo was known to OP’s husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe that people can redeem themselves from criminal mistakes made in their youth, but ultimately the support of the family for victims trumps that of the offender. Your DH seems to acknowledge that his family has every right to support the cousin. You are the one who wants to brush things under the rug because you are ashamed of your DH and your kids finding out about it.

The best parenting you and DH could do is for your DH to honestly acknowledge the HUGE mistake he made and explain to your sons that the consequences of his actions will follow him around for the rest of his life. The professional and legal repercussions and the personal/familial repercussions. One of which is that his family supports the cousins who made reasonable accusations given your DH's sex offenses.

Sexual predators can NEVER be redeemed or rehabilitated.

Why do you say this?

Are you really unaware that they have the highest recidivism rate? You seem like you’re just trolling.

OP here: I want to make it clear I wasn’t that poster. I am aware of the recidivism rate. His crimes are something I have had to come terms with and my decisions were made intelligently and made based on who he is and what he has done to better himself.

I know my husband, and I know how much work he has put in to better himself following his crimes. Because of that, I fully believe he has rehabilitated himself. I know that isn’t a guarantee he won’t struggle or even commit another crime, but I had to ask myself whether I believe he would be a part of those statistics. I think my answer to that question should be clear based on my decisions.

Your decision... to voice your displeasure that your in-laws invited a whistle-blower to their own home? You realize you cannot control who a home-owner invites; and that in this particular case, you REALLY don't have any right, since your husband is the person who seemed to be (or actually was) grooming a teen?

Your husband may be totally innocent in the letter-writing thing. But not many people will believe it since he has a prior history in a related activity. You really MUST understand this.

I hope you're a troll. If you're not, I would be very careful when inviting your children's friends into your home. Please never leave them alone with your husband, and make sure there are no hidden cameras anywhere in the house. Be very wary if your husband seeks to get a position of authority over minors: coach, school or church volunteer, carpool driver, etc... He seems to have that profile, unfortunately. Don't kid yourself. If his brain has these types of urges, it's really hard for him to resist without therapy or meds. It's not something you just snap out of. It's serious disorder.

OP here: My DH is fully compliant with all terms of his conviction. For a brief period he worked at an elementary school in a position with zero interaction with minors. He wasn’t seeking out a job at a school, however it was one he was qualified for. Prior to applying for this position, and prior to accepting it he discussed the specifics of the job with his parole officer and was told (incorrectly) that this would not be a violation (this was, as it turned out, not true).

He has consistently been in therapy and has (at times) been prescribed medication. Therapy was a condition of his release, and he has continued in therapy as it has been highly beneficial to him, both to address his issues that led to these decisions, but also to better improve himself.

Also, not to justify what he did, but I need to clarify that DH is not a pedophile. That does not diminish his crimes, but it does put them in perspective. He took several upskirt photos, one of which was of a 17 year old teenager. He did not know or have any reason to believe she was underage. He would never place himself in a position of authority over minors, and has no issues with his conditions of release prohibiting taking such positions, but I can tell you directly that the day he learned that one of his photos was of a minor, it broke him. Because it wasn’t his intention or desire to do so.

How is taking upskirt pics of a minor not being a pedophile?

Your sons will either be abused, or abusers themselves. So sad. Gross. How can you sleep at night? Literally asking.

You need to look up the definition of pedophile. What OP has described, while disgusting, is not pedophilia.

Explain the letter writing to underage female cousin. Completely inappropriate. No doubt grooming.

Who even wrote letters in 2012?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP is concerned about her DH being around these cousins because of the chance they make more “unfounded” accusations. For all we know, the penpal letters might truly have been fine, but maybe the cousin didn’t like the situation because of the DH’s upskirt history. And the cousin reported DH’s criminal history to the school where he was he was employed and got him fired (which is odd—how did the school not run a background check? Why did the parol officer not find him in violation of his parol terms if it was a problem?). The DH clearly did something wrong with the photos but it’s hard to know if that intent extended to the girl cousin. OP can’t seem to be objective about what her DH did and how others in the family may view it—rightly or wrongly. Because she can’t be objective, she views the accusations as unfounded which might lead to concerns about more accusations if they see the cousins or maybe there’s some lingering anger toward the cousin and OP doesn’t want to be around them. Regardless, this is DH’s call to make and OP shouldn’t have gone to the in-laws asking for a heads up in the future.

The cousin in question was a tween at the time this happened, per the original post. You are acting like the cousin was an adult who read inappropriate intent where there was none and then went to the school with them to get OP’s husband fired. More likely the tween found letters to his younger sister (who was at most a tween herself) that were very clearly inappropriate if a tween felt the need to show them to an adult. Moreover, if those letters were what lead to the investigation that turned up the upskirting photos on his computer, it is very likely that the letters were sufficiently concerning to law enforcement that they were investigating him for preying on minors. We don’t know what he was convicted of, or if he might have plead guilty to a lesser charge of voyeurism in order to avoid trial on more serious charges. A year in prison is a pretty harsh sentence for someone who did nothing more than take a few upskirt photos, even if one of them was a 17 year old.

Side note, if the 17 yo was some random person that the husband had no way of knowing was 17, how did law enforcement figure it out? There are a lot of these details in OP’s story that don’t make sense, which suggests she is burying the severity of what he actually did.

Your questioning whether it is possible for law enforcement to determine the identity of a victim?

Yes, unless 17 to caught him in the act and filed a complaint, I am questioning how law enforcement was able to identify a random unknown woman from a photo up her skirt to determine she was 17. If the 17 yo did not catch him in the act, I suspect the 17 yo was known to OP’s husband.

Was the 17YO photo victim the cousin? I'm also assuming these photos were posted on line with his "club."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP is concerned about her DH being around these cousins because of the chance they make more “unfounded” accusations. For all we know, the penpal letters might truly have been fine, but maybe the cousin didn’t like the situation because of the DH’s upskirt history. And the cousin reported DH’s criminal history to the school where he was he was employed and got him fired (which is odd—how did the school not run a background check? Why did the parol officer not find him in violation of his parol terms if it was a problem?). The DH clearly did something wrong with the photos but it’s hard to know if that intent extended to the girl cousin. OP can’t seem to be objective about what her DH did and how others in the family may view it—rightly or wrongly. Because she can’t be objective, she views the accusations as unfounded which might lead to concerns about more accusations if they see the cousins or maybe there’s some lingering anger toward the cousin and OP doesn’t want to be around them. Regardless, this is DH’s call to make and OP shouldn’t have gone to the in-laws asking for a heads up in the future.

The cousin in question was a tween at the time this happened, per the original post. You are acting like the cousin was an adult who read inappropriate intent where there was none and then went to the school with them to get OP’s husband fired. More likely the tween found letters to his younger sister (who was at most a tween herself) that were very clearly inappropriate if a tween felt the need to show them to an adult. Moreover, if those letters were what lead to the investigation that turned up the upskirting photos on his computer, it is very likely that the letters were sufficiently concerning to law enforcement that they were investigating him for preying on minors. We don’t know what he was convicted of, or if he might have plead guilty to a lesser charge of voyeurism in order to avoid trial on more serious charges. A year in prison is a pretty harsh sentence for someone who did nothing more than take a few upskirt photos, even if one of them was a 17 year old.

Side note, if the 17 yo was some random person that the husband had no way of knowing was 17, how did law enforcement figure it out? There are a lot of these details in OP’s story that don’t make sense, which suggests she is burying the severity of what he actually did.

Your questioning whether it is possible for law enforcement to determine the identity of a victim?

Yes, unless 17 to caught him in the act and filed a complaint, I am questioning how law enforcement was able to identify a random unknown woman from a photo up her skirt to determine she was 17. If the 17 yo did not catch him in the act, I suspect the 17 yo was known to OP’s husband.

Was the 17YO photo victim the cousin? I'm also assuming these photos were posted on line with his "club."

No, OP said the penpal cousin was pre-pubescent at the time of the letters.

[Anonymous]

I am a little surprised that the in-laws didn't give OP and husband a heads up. What did they think was going to happen when everyone showed up for Thanksgiving dinner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a little surprised that the in-laws didn't give OP and husband a heads up. What did they think was going to happen when everyone showed up for Thanksgiving dinner?

It’s possible they did tell OP’s husband in some way, who decided not to tell OP because he knew she would refuse to go to his family’s thanksgiving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP is concerned about her DH being around these cousins because of the chance they make more “unfounded” accusations. For all we know, the penpal letters might truly have been fine, but maybe the cousin didn’t like the situation because of the DH’s upskirt history. And the cousin reported DH’s criminal history to the school where he was he was employed and got him fired (which is odd—how did the school not run a background check? Why did the parol officer not find him in violation of his parol terms if it was a problem?). The DH clearly did something wrong with the photos but it’s hard to know if that intent extended to the girl cousin. OP can’t seem to be objective about what her DH did and how others in the family may view it—rightly or wrongly. Because she can’t be objective, she views the accusations as unfounded which might lead to concerns about more accusations if they see the cousins or maybe there’s some lingering anger toward the cousin and OP doesn’t want to be around them. Regardless, this is DH’s call to make and OP shouldn’t have gone to the in-laws asking for a heads up in the future.

The cousin in question was a tween at the time this happened, per the original post. You are acting like the cousin was an adult who read inappropriate intent where there was none and then went to the school with them to get OP’s husband fired. More likely the tween found letters to his younger sister (who was at most a tween herself) that were very clearly inappropriate if a tween felt the need to show them to an adult. Moreover, if those letters were what lead to the investigation that turned up the upskirting photos on his computer, it is very likely that the letters were sufficiently concerning to law enforcement that they were investigating him for preying on minors. We don’t know what he was convicted of, or if he might have plead guilty to a lesser charge of voyeurism in order to avoid trial on more serious charges. A year in prison is a pretty harsh sentence for someone who did nothing more than take a few upskirt photos, even if one of them was a 17 year old.

Side note, if the 17 yo was some random person that the husband had no way of knowing was 17, how did law enforcement figure it out? There are a lot of these details in OP’s story that don’t make sense, which suggests she is burying the severity of what he actually did.

This is a whole lot of speculation and it’s not helpful. Yes, OP’s husband did some terrible things. But we don’t need to manufacturer more terrible things he probably didn’t do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP is concerned about her DH being around these cousins because of the chance they make more “unfounded” accusations. For all we know, the penpal letters might truly have been fine, but maybe the cousin didn’t like the situation because of the DH’s upskirt history. And the cousin reported DH’s criminal history to the school where he was he was employed and got him fired (which is odd—how did the school not run a background check? Why did the parol officer not find him in violation of his parol terms if it was a problem?). The DH clearly did something wrong with the photos but it’s hard to know if that intent extended to the girl cousin. OP can’t seem to be objective about what her DH did and how others in the family may view it—rightly or wrongly. Because she can’t be objective, she views the accusations as unfounded which might lead to concerns about more accusations if they see the cousins or maybe there’s some lingering anger toward the cousin and OP doesn’t want to be around them. Regardless, this is DH’s call to make and OP shouldn’t have gone to the in-laws asking for a heads up in the future.

The cousin in question was a tween at the time this happened, per the original post. You are acting like the cousin was an adult who read inappropriate intent where there was none and then went to the school with them to get OP’s husband fired. More likely the tween found letters to his younger sister (who was at most a tween herself) that were very clearly inappropriate if a tween felt the need to show them to an adult. Moreover, if those letters were what lead to the investigation that turned up the upskirting photos on his computer, it is very likely that the letters were sufficiently concerning to law enforcement that they were investigating him for preying on minors. We don’t know what he was convicted of, or if he might have plead guilty to a lesser charge of voyeurism in order to avoid trial on more serious charges. A year in prison is a pretty harsh sentence for someone who did nothing more than take a few upskirt photos, even if one of them was a 17 year old.

Side note, if the 17 yo was some random person that the husband had no way of knowing was 17, how did law enforcement figure it out? There are a lot of these details in OP’s story that don’t make sense, which suggests she is burying the severity of what he actually did.

This is a whole lot of speculation and it’s not helpful. Yes, OP’s husband did some terrible things. But we don’t need to manufacturer more terrible things he probably didn’t do.

That’s a pretty weak effort to excuse a sexual predator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait... so your husband just committed these crimes 10 years ago, your kids are aged 6 and 9, and you separated for a year to reconcile before getting married? 🤔

Good catch.

OP has more explaining to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Notice that not once has OP returned to comment on her own behavior during the dinner.

Jeff has checked that this person is not a known troll, but it certainly looks like trolling.

OP here. I haven’t commented on “my own behavior” because literally every response is that my husband should be jailed forever for his crimes. Which is fair to say, whatever, not knowing him I can see that opinion seeming reasonable.

I am not angry at this cousin for not wanting a relationship with DH. I had to come to peace with DH’s actions, and I don’t expect anyone to find that peace.

I’m angry that my in-laws would invite this cousin, knowing very well it would be incredibly awkward, without specifically letting us know. They have every right to invite whoever they want. Had we been told he would be there we would have politely declined the invitation and made other plans. So I, politely, pulled them aside (in private) and expressed this.

From your OP:
DH thinks I went too far, and believes it was a good chance to build a relationship with this cousin

So no, it doesn't sound like your husband would have declined to attend, actually. You need to butt out.