“Beach House” Early

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t want to be with SIL why are you pretending it’s about the rooms?

We would stay with them if the rooms were suitable. The difficulty is that explaining we don’t want our nephew unsupervised with our kids would kick off a huge and unnecessary family drama— we don’t care if he’s medicated/in therapy/doing sports, we aren’t risking our kids safety and it’s not up for discussion.

So then why do you want them to ask for your input on the house if you never intend to stay there?

Because if it’s something that really matters to them we could do it for a couple of days with the right accommodations.

So then the cousins violent behavior isnt really an issue if you would "stay anyway". You are confusing.

+100. Exactly this. Pick a lane, OP.

Agree

[Anonymous]

Ok Aunt Karen. Keep saying that to yourself. You are right in that the Inlaws likely don't want you there. You exude nothing but drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posts not supporting OP either have problematic children, or they are just trying to stir the pot. Ignore, OP. Don't bring it up in discussion - these people will never admit their issues.

OP is being confusing. She doesn't want to stay at the house because of violent nephew, but will stay at the house with violent nephew if Inlaws really want her too, but she doesn't want to stay AND they aren't asking for input on the house she doesn't want to stay at. OP needs to decide if she can/wants to manage her own children around nephew or not. If she does, then stay and ask to provide input on the house; if not, stay elsewhere. But if OP is only staying for 1-2 nights, OP shouldn't get to provide input on the house where people are staying for a week.

I'm not confused at all.

NP. I am confused. I am confused by anyone whose child had been hurt by another child would ever subject their kid to staying under the same roof as a child who has proven violent tendencies, ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t want to be with SIL why are you pretending it’s about the rooms?

We would stay with them if the rooms were suitable. The difficulty is that explaining we don’t want our nephew unsupervised with our kids would kick off a huge and unnecessary family drama— we don’t care if he’s medicated/in therapy/doing sports, we aren’t risking our kids safety and it’s not up for discussion.

So then why do you want them to ask for your input on the house if you never intend to stay there?

Because if it’s something that really matters to them we could do it for a couple of days with the right accommodations.

So then the cousins violent behavior isnt really an issue if you would "stay anyway". You are confusing.

+100. Exactly this. Pick a lane, OP.

Agree

I can’t tell if the “confused” posts are in good faith, but just in case:

We would spend 1-2 days at the beach house staying with the in-laws if our accommodations were such that we could lock a door at night between our kids and oldest cousin— so no wandering out to the bathroom at 2 a.m. The rest of the time we watch the kids like hawks and the only time we don’t is when we’re asleep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posts not supporting OP either have problematic children, or they are just trying to stir the pot. Ignore, OP. Don't bring it up in discussion - these people will never admit their issues.

OP is being confusing. She doesn't want to stay at the house because of violent nephew, but will stay at the house with violent nephew if Inlaws really want her too, but she doesn't want to stay AND they aren't asking for input on the house she doesn't want to stay at. OP needs to decide if she can/wants to manage her own children around nephew or not. If she does, then stay and ask to provide input on the house; if not, stay elsewhere. But if OP is only staying for 1-2 nights, OP shouldn't get to provide input on the house where people are staying for a week.

I'm not confused at all.

NP. I am confused. I am confused by anyone whose child had been hurt by another child would ever subject their kid to staying under the same roof as a child who has proven violent tendencies, ever.

Our children haven’t been hurt by their cousin. Our nephew injured his siblings, and as a result we have never let him with our children unless under our supervision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posts not supporting OP either have problematic children, or they are just trying to stir the pot. Ignore, OP. Don't bring it up in discussion - these people will never admit their issues.

OP is being confusing. She doesn't want to stay at the house because of violent nephew, but will stay at the house with violent nephew if Inlaws really want her too, but she doesn't want to stay AND they aren't asking for input on the house she doesn't want to stay at. OP needs to decide if she can/wants to manage her own children around nephew or not. If she does, then stay and ask to provide input on the house; if not, stay elsewhere. But if OP is only staying for 1-2 nights, OP shouldn't get to provide input on the house where people are staying for a week.

I'm not confused at all.

NP. I am confused. I am confused by anyone whose child had been hurt by another child would ever subject their kid to staying under the same roof as a child who has proven violent tendencies, ever.

But OP would do it because her in-laws want her too?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t want to be with SIL why are you pretending it’s about the rooms?

We would stay with them if the rooms were suitable. The difficulty is that explaining we don’t want our nephew unsupervised with our kids would kick off a huge and unnecessary family drama— we don’t care if he’s medicated/in therapy/doing sports, we aren’t risking our kids safety and it’s not up for discussion.

So then why do you want them to ask for your input on the house if you never intend to stay there?

Because if it’s something that really matters to them we could do it for a couple of days with the right accommodations.

So then the cousins violent behavior isnt really an issue if you would "stay anyway". You are confusing.

+100. Exactly this. Pick a lane, OP.

Agree

I can’t tell if the “confused” posts are in good faith, but just in case:

We would spend 1-2 days at the beach house staying with the in-laws if our accommodations were such that we could lock a door at night between our kids and oldest cousin— so no wandering out to the bathroom at 2 a.m. The rest of the time we watch the kids like hawks and the only time we don’t is when we’re asleep.

OP makes the nephew sound like a psycho path with a hairpin trigger so if she feels comfortable with a flimsy rental door lock to keep her kids safe while she is asleep, have at it and good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t want to be with SIL why are you pretending it’s about the rooms?

We would stay with them if the rooms were suitable. The difficulty is that explaining we don’t want our nephew unsupervised with our kids would kick off a huge and unnecessary family drama— we don’t care if he’s medicated/in therapy/doing sports, we aren’t risking our kids safety and it’s not up for discussion.

So then why do you want them to ask for your input on the house if you never intend to stay there?

Because if it’s something that really matters to them we could do it for a couple of days with the right accommodations.

So then the cousins violent behavior isnt really an issue if you would "stay anyway". You are confusing.

+100. Exactly this. Pick a lane, OP.

Agree

I can’t tell if the “confused” posts are in good faith, but just in case:

We would spend 1-2 days at the beach house staying with the in-laws if our accommodations were such that we could lock a door at night between our kids and oldest cousin— so no wandering out to the bathroom at 2 a.m. The rest of the time we watch the kids like hawks and the only time we don’t is when we’re asleep.

OP makes the nephew sound like a psycho path with a hairpin trigger so if she feels comfortable with a flimsy rental door lock to keep her kids safe while she is asleep, have at it and good luck.

I’m OP. I don’t think I made him sound like a psychopath— he has significantly injured two of his siblings, both times things which an adult present could have prevented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t want to be with SIL why are you pretending it’s about the rooms?

We would stay with them if the rooms were suitable. The difficulty is that explaining we don’t want our nephew unsupervised with our kids would kick off a huge and unnecessary family drama— we don’t care if he’s medicated/in therapy/doing sports, we aren’t risking our kids safety and it’s not up for discussion.

So then why do you want them to ask for your input on the house if you never intend to stay there?

Because if it’s something that really matters to them we could do it for a couple of days with the right accommodations.

So then the cousins violent behavior isnt really an issue if you would "stay anyway". You are confusing.

+100. Exactly this. Pick a lane, OP.

Agree

I can’t tell if the “confused” posts are in good faith, but just in case:

We would spend 1-2 days at the beach house staying with the in-laws if our accommodations were such that we could lock a door at night between our kids and oldest cousin— so no wandering out to the bathroom at 2 a.m. The rest of the time we watch the kids like hawks and the only time we don’t is when we’re asleep.

OK, so...why don't you send around links of places that will work for you?

[Confusing excuses because you don't actually know if they want you, and you're just as happy to stay in a hotel, etc.]

There's an easy way to get what you allegedly want--it is called being proactive--but you refuse to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posts not supporting OP either have problematic children, or they are just trying to stir the pot. Ignore, OP. Don't bring it up in discussion - these people will never admit their issues.

OP is being confusing. She doesn't want to stay at the house because of violent nephew, but will stay at the house with violent nephew if Inlaws really want her too, but she doesn't want to stay AND they aren't asking for input on the house she doesn't want to stay at. OP needs to decide if she can/wants to manage her own children around nephew or not. If she does, then stay and ask to provide input on the house; if not, stay elsewhere. But if OP is only staying for 1-2 nights, OP shouldn't get to provide input on the house where people are staying for a week.

I'm not confused at all.

NP. I am confused. I am confused by anyone whose child had been hurt by another child would ever subject their kid to staying under the same roof as a child who has proven violent tendencies, ever.

Our children haven’t been hurt by their cousin. Our nephew injured his siblings, and as a result we have never let him with our children unless under our supervision.

So you're willing to stay with a known violent kid. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t want to be with SIL why are you pretending it’s about the rooms?

We would stay with them if the rooms were suitable. The difficulty is that explaining we don’t want our nephew unsupervised with our kids would kick off a huge and unnecessary family drama— we don’t care if he’s medicated/in therapy/doing sports, we aren’t risking our kids safety and it’s not up for discussion.

So then why do you want them to ask for your input on the house if you never intend to stay there?

Because if it’s something that really matters to them we could do it for a couple of days with the right accommodations.

So then the cousins violent behavior isnt really an issue if you would "stay anyway". You are confusing.

+100. Exactly this. Pick a lane, OP.

Agree

I can’t tell if the “confused” posts are in good faith, but just in case:

We would spend 1-2 days at the beach house staying with the in-laws if our accommodations were such that we could lock a door at night between our kids and oldest cousin— so no wandering out to the bathroom at 2 a.m. The rest of the time we watch the kids like hawks and the only time we don’t is when we’re asleep.

OP makes the nephew sound like a psycho path with a hairpin trigger so if she feels comfortable with a flimsy rental door lock to keep her kids safe while she is asleep, have at it and good luck.

I’m OP. I don’t think I made him sound like a psychopath— he has significantly injured two of his siblings, both times things which an adult present could have prevented.

I have to wonder what kind of parent YOU are, because you can prevent injury to your family by...not staying with this kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posts not supporting OP either have problematic children, or they are just trying to stir the pot. Ignore, OP. Don't bring it up in discussion - these people will never admit their issues.

OP is being confusing. She doesn't want to stay at the house because of violent nephew, but will stay at the house with violent nephew if Inlaws really want her too, but she doesn't want to stay AND they aren't asking for input on the house she doesn't want to stay at. OP needs to decide if she can/wants to manage her own children around nephew or not. If she does, then stay and ask to provide input on the house; if not, stay elsewhere. But if OP is only staying for 1-2 nights, OP shouldn't get to provide input on the house where people are staying for a week.

I'm not confused at all.

NP. I am confused. I am confused by anyone whose child had been hurt by another child would ever subject their kid to staying under the same roof as a child who has proven violent tendencies, ever.

But OP would do it because her in-laws want her too?????

I understand it. OP is saying that for the sake of others, she would be willing to maintain this super-high level of vigilance for a shorter period of time. But it is not realistic to be so vigilant for longer (especially if OP cannot count on her DH to supervise closely enough). So only a short visit can be done with enough safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t want to be with SIL why are you pretending it’s about the rooms?

We would stay with them if the rooms were suitable. The difficulty is that explaining we don’t want our nephew unsupervised with our kids would kick off a huge and unnecessary family drama— we don’t care if he’s medicated/in therapy/doing sports, we aren’t risking our kids safety and it’s not up for discussion.

So then why do you want them to ask for your input on the house if you never intend to stay there?

Because if it’s something that really matters to them we could do it for a couple of days with the right accommodations.

So then the cousins violent behavior isnt really an issue if you would "stay anyway". You are confusing.

+100. Exactly this. Pick a lane, OP.

Agree

I can’t tell if the “confused” posts are in good faith, but just in case:

We would spend 1-2 days at the beach house staying with the in-laws if our accommodations were such that we could lock a door at night between our kids and oldest cousin— so no wandering out to the bathroom at 2 a.m. The rest of the time we watch the kids like hawks and the only time we don’t is when we’re asleep.

OP, your requests are going to be both too picky and too provocative for your in-laws, right? In that case, keep doing what you’re doing and rely on a few stock phrases for when the in-laws complain. “Oh, we don’t want to bother you.” “Oh, so and so is a light sleeper.” Whatever.

I wouldn’t share accommodations in this case under any circumstances. One of my nieces is similar to the cousin you describe - they stayed with us one year for Christmas and while no one was injured, there was a lot of hiding and sheltering and worrying. No more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posts not supporting OP either have problematic children, or they are just trying to stir the pot. Ignore, OP. Don't bring it up in discussion - these people will never admit their issues.

OP is being confusing. She doesn't want to stay at the house because of violent nephew, but will stay at the house with violent nephew if Inlaws really want her too, but she doesn't want to stay AND they aren't asking for input on the house she doesn't want to stay at. OP needs to decide if she can/wants to manage her own children around nephew or not. If she does, then stay and ask to provide input on the house; if not, stay elsewhere. But if OP is only staying for 1-2 nights, OP shouldn't get to provide input on the house where people are staying for a week.

I'm not confused at all.

NP. I am confused. I am confused by anyone whose child had been hurt by another child would ever subject their kid to staying under the same roof as a child who has proven violent tendencies, ever.

But OP would do it because her in-laws want her too?????

I understand it. OP is saying that for the sake of others, she would be willing to maintain this super-high level of vigilance for a shorter period of time. But it is not realistic to be so vigilant for longer (especially if OP cannot count on her DH to supervise closely enough). So only a short visit can be done with enough safety.

Right...but when it was suggested to her that OP be proactive by sending them links of places she would deem safe/desirable, she backtracked and said no no, I don't want to be proactive because I don't think they want us to go and they're just being polite and what does it all mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t want to be with SIL why are you pretending it’s about the rooms?

We would stay with them if the rooms were suitable. The difficulty is that explaining we don’t want our nephew unsupervised with our kids would kick off a huge and unnecessary family drama— we don’t care if he’s medicated/in therapy/doing sports, we aren’t risking our kids safety and it’s not up for discussion.

So then why do you want them to ask for your input on the house if you never intend to stay there?

Because if it’s something that really matters to them we could do it for a couple of days with the right accommodations.

So then the cousins violent behavior isnt really an issue if you would "stay anyway". You are confusing.

+100. Exactly this. Pick a lane, OP.

Agree

I can’t tell if the “confused” posts are in good faith, but just in case:

We would spend 1-2 days at the beach house staying with the in-laws if our accommodations were such that we could lock a door at night between our kids and oldest cousin— so no wandering out to the bathroom at 2 a.m. The rest of the time we watch the kids like hawks and the only time we don’t is when we’re asleep.

This is just…not worth it. Get your own accommodations.