We're worried about our son and our grandchildren

[Anonymous]

OP again: Especially because we don't want to "cut off" #2 - we love the time we spend together. We just feel that we can't completely substain their lifestyle.

The condos in DC are in the same building. Our own children grew up down the street from their paternal grandparents and it was wonderful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are not making the effort because they know you'll bail them out. Stop it. They will not fall into poverty. They will get it together. If you want to support your grandchildren you can provide enrichment activities that benefit them. Travel with them, pay for their education, etc. But stop enabling the adults. You won't help your situation if you buy them a condo in DC. They can live on their 40k in Stafford or Culpeper. Your son can work at Home Depot and your DIL can work at a grocery store. They'll be fine.

This. Same dynamic in dh's family. His sister and brother in law stay minimally employed because her parents will always bail them out, bought them a house, etc. . Guess it's really hard to seethe pattern when it is your own kid. Only way to make it stop is to stop enabling them and cut off the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To clarify, the time share in Colorado is ours (we want it - though of course sometimes our children and extended family are sometimes invited) and we're "reclaiming" #2's condo in SF for us.

We're proud of #1 for pursuing a "noble" independent path, and of course we're happy to help him out when he needs it since he doesn't make that much money. But the paradox is he resents us for "favoring" #2 but says he doesn't actually want that same treatment for himself. Isn't that trying to have it both ways?

How can we "cut off" #2 without cutting off #1 though?

Oh my god, you need a backbone! Listen very carefully to what I'm about to say: fair does NOT mean equal. Fair means you do for each what they need. It does not mean if you do for one you do the exact same for the other. Tell #1 to stop looking at what #2 has, and to just concentrate on what #1 has and CAN DO FOR HIMSELF. Tell #2 that after the holidays you and your spouse are no longer buying them housing, giving them housing, or paying their bills of any kind. They need to get JOBS. Costco pays will and doesn't require much experience, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To clarify, the time share in Colorado is ours (we want it - though of course sometimes our children and extended family are sometimes invited) and we're "reclaiming" #2's condo in SF for us.

We're proud of #1 for pursuing a "noble" independent path, and of course we're happy to help him out when he needs it since he doesn't make that much money. But the paradox is he resents us for "favoring" #2 but says he doesn't actually want that same treatment for himself. Isn't that trying to have it both ways?

How can we "cut off" #2 without cutting off #1 though?

You do just that. Your sons are old enough to stand on their own and #1 is clear that he is willing to do so. You clearly feel badly that he chose a "noble" path rather than the lucrative path that your husband chose. He was able to choose that path because he knew he would have a soft landing if it went wrong - and that's okay. But now he's asking to be left alone. If you MUST help, offer to cover adoption fees, since those are extraordinary expenses. When/if they have kids, offer to cover private school tuition, as that's a normal thing for well-off grandparents to cover.

If I can be honest, it seems like that money is burning a hole in your pocket. Go to Rome. Spend a month there. See some art. Do something for you, rather than continuing to enable your youngest to extend his adolescence into perpetuity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are not making the effort because they know you'll bail them out. Stop it. They will not fall into poverty. They will get it together. If you want to support your grandchildren you can provide enrichment activities that benefit them. Travel with them, pay for their education, etc. But stop enabling the adults. You won't help your situation if you buy them a condo in DC. They can live on their 40k in Stafford or Culpeper. Your son can work at Home Depot and your DIL can work at a grocery store. They'll be fine.

Agree. You need to stop buying things for the adults.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, OP. Just wanted to chime in and say you're not alone +1. My parents are supporting my grown brother who thankfully has no wife or family. My dad is trying to start a business for his sake. They have been bailing him out for too long and yet as a parent myself I can emphatize with their situation. They have always been great parents and would never leave either of us to fail. You are doing the right thing to help yr grandchildren, but i dont know what to say about cutting off support to their parents. But it is good for you that you are wealthy... Much wealthier than my parents. Good luck to you!

[Anonymous]

It sounds like #1 is mostly living off his salary. It doesn't sound like he's "resentful" in terms of wanting #2's life, but it probably does hurt to see that he's worked reasonably hard, they can't have children through no fault of their own (that hurts) and and you seem (to put it bluntly) to be indulging #2 and DIL far too much. It doesn't sound like a "money" issue to me. You live in the same area and now you want to much into the same condo building. I get it.

It also seems you've implicitly accepted that #2 can't make it on his own and feel the need to "compensate" for that.

Stop co-parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again: Especially because we don't want to "cut off" #2 - we love the time we spend together. We just feel that we can't completely substain their lifestyle.

The condos in DC are in the same building. Our own children grew up down the street from their paternal grandparents and it was wonderful.

You MUST cut off #2! You don't have to stop spending time with him, but stop financially supporting him. Go watch the movie Failure to Launch twice, and then come back to this thread. Do you notice EVERYONE is basically telling you the same thing? NOBODY is encouraging you to keep supporting #2!

You can spend time with #2 and his family. You can even have them over for dinner once a week. But do not pay ANY bills they regularly incur and do not pay their housing costs. You want to buy the grandkids cute Christmas pajamas? Go for it! You want to take them to see the Nutcracker? Have fun! You want to pay for a once-a-year vacation for both sons and their families? Fine. But that's IT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To clarify, the time share in Colorado is ours (we want it - though of course sometimes our children and extended family are sometimes invited) and we're "reclaiming" #2's condo in SF for us.

We're proud of #1 for pursuing a "noble" independent path, and of course we're happy to help him out when he needs it since he doesn't make that much money. But the paradox is he resents us for "favoring" #2 but says he doesn't actually want that same treatment for himself. Isn't that trying to have it both ways?

How can we "cut off" #2 without cutting off #1 though?

Your real problem is that you think it's fine to permanently supplement your children's incomes. Please realize that this creates all sorts of unhealthy relationships and stunts the growth (in resilience and responsibility) of your children.

Apparently, choosing a noble career path "justifies" having a few perks from you. It shouldn't!
DC1 isn't turning the help down, is he? So his job isn't all that noble, is it? He might not even have considered this path if you hadn't shown your willingness to fund a more luxurious life for him.
And then, DC1 feels guilty because his inactivity is somehow unworthy of receiving financial help??? That's ridiculous, because DC1 shouldn't be helped either.

My husband works in cancer research. He earns less than 6 figures with an MD and a PhD. He's saving future lives, and obviously isn't in it for the money. Our parents are not helping us, even though they could. We have enough to live on with our 2 children. Frugally. We prioritize education and culture. We are happy.

You have created a vicious cycle, and whatever you decide, it will be drama now or drama later. Pick your poison.

[Anonymous]

Oh for Christ's sake. Is this a troll?

Fund 529s for the grandchildren. Buy your freeloading son a piece of real estate if you feel you must. Then write a letter (so he has time and space to process) to your son saying that you will no longer be providing regular or emergency support.

Then STOP.

[Anonymous]

^^Write the same letter to DS1, btw. I'm the DD and wife of a teacher, and your stance on this is, frankly, insulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To clarify, the time share in Colorado is ours (we want it - though of course sometimes our children and extended family are sometimes invited) and we're "reclaiming" #2's condo in SF for us.

We're proud of #1 for pursuing a "noble" independent path, and of course we're happy to help him out when he needs it since he doesn't make that much money. But the paradox is he resents us for "favoring" #2 but says he doesn't actually want that same treatment for himself. Isn't that trying to have it both ways?

How can we "cut off" #2 without cutting off #1 though?

Your real problem is that you think it's fine to permanently supplement your children's incomes. Please realize that this creates all sorts of unhealthy relationships and stunts the growth (in resilience and responsibility) of your children.

Apparently, choosing a noble career path "justifies" having a few perks from you. It shouldn't!
DC1 isn't turning the help down, is he? So his job isn't all that noble, is it? He might not even have considered this path if you hadn't shown your willingness to fund a more luxurious life for him.
And then, DC1 feels guilty because his inactivity is somehow unworthy of receiving financial help??? That's ridiculous, because DC1 shouldn't be helped either.

My husband works in cancer research. He earns less than 6 figures with an MD and a PhD. He's saving future lives, and obviously isn't in it for the money. Our parents are not helping us, even though they could. We have enough to live on with our 2 children. Frugally. We prioritize education and culture. We are happy.

You have created a vicious cycle, and whatever you decide, it will be drama now or drama later. Pick your poison.

OP here. I don't expect Horatio Algers. Nor do I think our children should be completely, 100% "cut off" or else be condemned as sinful ingrates by the likes of you.

We have no problem leaving aside some money for our children and grandchildren and help them from time to time.

Surely there's a middle ground here.

Take your 100% "tough love" attitude elsewhere. I'm sure your husband has no shoes and ha to walk 5 miles to work every day in the snow, all in the name of "helping humanity" and not being dependent on anyone. Nice platitudes, but it's not helpful here.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, there is a middle ground. You make sure college is paid for for the grandchildren, give generous birthday checks, and finance nice family vacations. But day to day living? Adults do that on their own. And it is important for their sense of self that they do so.

You have stunted your kid's growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again: Especially because we don't want to "cut off" #2 - we love the time we spend together. We just feel that we can't completely substain their lifestyle.

The condos in DC are in the same building. Our own children grew up down the street from their paternal grandparents and it was wonderful.

You seem to be confusing cutting him off financially with cutting him off emotionally. You can do the first without the second, or are you worried that he won't want to spend time with you (and allow you access to the grandkids) if you stop subsidizing his lifestyle?

[Anonymous]

If I were you I'd make any additional support to #2 contingent on his having a job. You can pay him $1 (or $3) for every dollar he earns. With that incentive he might be willing to get a job, any job, and then he will gain work experience and confidence.

Plus this is more equal and fairer to #1. They are both subsidized by you but ONLY when they are working.