I tattled on my BIL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 kids, a teen and a tween. My BIL and SIL have several kids ranging from a tween who is my kid’s bff to a young toddler. My BIL is a nice guy, and a good father. But he has this super annoying habit of dumping his kids on people. When he does it to me it’s annoying, but I can decide in advance what I will do and set my boundaries and it turns out OK, but he also does it to my teenager which bothers me more.

His mother is visiting, and she has been bringing the kids to meet mine at the pool. It has been really nice as she stays and watches the kids and brings food (something else he doesn’t do).

Both tweens have birthdays coming up and his Mom has proposed taking some or all the kids to a water park for a couple days. I am concerned that my oldest will find himself in the water park with too many kids to safely manage. She asked me why I was worried and I explained that it would fit with the pattern.

We saw their whole family this weekend and it was awkward. I could tell she’d told him. I am not sure if I should have just declined the invite and made an excuse or what.

What do people think?

Says: My BIL is a nice guy, and a good father.

Also says: But he has this super annoying habit of dumping his kids on people.

So, not such a "good father" is he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should have kept your mouth shut unless it was directly to your BIL.

And just not let my kids go?

No, if you felt strongly about your brother-in-law, then you should have addressed the issue with him personally and not with his mommy. It was really immature and backstabbing of you.

NP here. I disagree. I don't broach subjects like this with men. Too risky, it could set them off on a violent tirade. Men only defend themselves, in my experience. It's not as if he will take your words as constructive criticism. Men actually don't care at all about things like children's safety and comfort. Your BIL sounds like a typical man. Watch out for him, he could be abusing his wife or doing something predatory with the younger children.

Omg, you went waaaaay out on the ledge here. Your perception here has nothing to do with the context and is pretty unhinged. Let's work on your issues in another thread. Jeeez. I need an effing shower after that response.

OP- You've been bottling up some concerns which would have been best dealt with in an more problem solving win- win way, rather than a passive aggressive triangulation which has now cost everyone what was a very nice family relationship. Why couldn't you have just sorted this out matter of factly, and kindly, with him and not in this way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should have kept your mouth shut unless it was directly to your BIL.

And just not let my kids go?

No, if you felt strongly about your brother-in-law, then you should have addressed the issue with him personally and not with his mommy. It was really immature and backstabbing of you.

NP here. I disagree. I don't broach subjects like this with men. Too risky, it could set them off on a violent tirade. Men only defend themselves, in my experience. It's not as if he will take your words as constructive criticism. Men actually don't care at all about things like children's safety and comfort. Your BIL sounds like a typical man. Watch out for him, he could be abusing his wife or doing something predatory with the younger children.

Someone has daddy issues.

Just issues, generally, which probably require an actual medication. This was the absolute worst response ever. But, I've come to expect at least one on every DCUM thread, so...

[Anonymous]

OP, your concern seems totally reasonable. It is a waterpark. If this dude doesn't watch his kids well and forces your teen to babysit his kids by disappearing, a waterpark is the last place I would let my kids go to with him. Your teen/tween doesn't need to be a part of a toddler drowning situation because the dad is checked out.

Here's the thing that sucks about this. He knows he's wrong. People who are lax caregivers know that they are checking out and convince themselves that the kids are fine, and that everything is fine, and that more cautious people are just uptight. There will never be a change in his mindset until someone gets hurt. If it caused some ruffled feathers, hopefully he will get over it, but, you can't ignore and allow your kids to keep being put in that position. It sounds like the teen's relationship is already set. Even if BIL doesn't love you, if the teens are normal and have phones - they can maintain their close cousin relationship without parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, your concern seems totally reasonable. It is a waterpark. If this dude doesn't watch his kids well and forces your teen to babysit his kids by disappearing, a waterpark is the last place I would let my kids go to with him. Your teen/tween doesn't need to be a part of a toddler drowning situation because the dad is checked out.

Here's the thing that sucks about this. He knows he's wrong. People who are lax caregivers know that they are checking out and convince themselves that the kids are fine, and that everything is fine, and that more cautious people are just uptight. There will never be a change in his mindset until someone gets hurt. If it caused some ruffled feathers, hopefully he will get over it, but, you can't ignore and allow your kids to keep being put in that position. It sounds like the teen's relationship is already set. Even if BIL doesn't love you, if the teens are normal and have phones - they can maintain their close cousin relationship without parents.

I agree. The only other thing I think is that this should have been between siblings. Your children's father should have taken this up with his sibling. Personally I think we're all responsible for communicating with our own families of origin when it comes to boundary setting, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your concern seems totally reasonable. It is a waterpark. If this dude doesn't watch his kids well and forces your teen to babysit his kids by disappearing, a waterpark is the last place I would let my kids go to with him. Your teen/tween doesn't need to be a part of a toddler drowning situation because the dad is checked out.

Here's the thing that sucks about this. He knows he's wrong. People who are lax caregivers know that they are checking out and convince themselves that the kids are fine, and that everything is fine, and that more cautious people are just uptight. There will never be a change in his mindset until someone gets hurt. If it caused some ruffled feathers, hopefully he will get over it, but, you can't ignore and allow your kids to keep being put in that position. It sounds like the teen's relationship is already set. Even if BIL doesn't love you, if the teens are normal and have phones - they can maintain their close cousin relationship without parents.

I agree. The only other thing I think is that this should have been between siblings. Your children's father should have taken this up with his sibling. Personally I think we're all responsible for communicating with our own families of origin when it comes to boundary setting, etc.

Except for Op says she’s a widow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your concern seems totally reasonable. It is a waterpark. If this dude doesn't watch his kids well and forces your teen to babysit his kids by disappearing, a waterpark is the last place I would let my kids go to with him. Your teen/tween doesn't need to be a part of a toddler drowning situation because the dad is checked out.

Here's the thing that sucks about this. He knows he's wrong. People who are lax caregivers know that they are checking out and convince themselves that the kids are fine, and that everything is fine, and that more cautious people are just uptight. There will never be a change in his mindset until someone gets hurt. If it caused some ruffled feathers, hopefully he will get over it, but, you can't ignore and allow your kids to keep being put in that position. It sounds like the teen's relationship is already set. Even if BIL doesn't love you, if the teens are normal and have phones - they can maintain their close cousin relationship without parents.

I agree. The only other thing I think is that this should have been between siblings. Your children's father should have taken this up with his sibling. Personally I think we're all responsible for communicating with our own families of origin when it comes to boundary setting, etc.

Except for Op says she’s a widow.

Oh shoot, I missed that. So sorry, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your concern seems totally reasonable. It is a waterpark. If this dude doesn't watch his kids well and forces your teen to babysit his kids by disappearing, a waterpark is the last place I would let my kids go to with him. Your teen/tween doesn't need to be a part of a toddler drowning situation because the dad is checked out.

Here's the thing that sucks about this. He knows he's wrong. People who are lax caregivers know that they are checking out and convince themselves that the kids are fine, and that everything is fine, and that more cautious people are just uptight. There will never be a change in his mindset until someone gets hurt. If it caused some ruffled feathers, hopefully he will get over it, but, you can't ignore and allow your kids to keep being put in that position. It sounds like the teen's relationship is already set. Even if BIL doesn't love you, if the teens are normal and have phones - they can maintain their close cousin relationship without parents.

I agree. The only other thing I think is that this should have been between siblings. Your children's father should have taken this up with his sibling. Personally I think we're all responsible for communicating with our own families of origin when it comes to boundary setting, etc.

So, obviously this strategy doesn't work for us.

But even back when it was an option, I generally think that we should talk to the people in front of us. I spoke to the person inviting my kids on the trip about my concerns about the trip. Asking someone (my DH) to speak to someone else (his sister) so they could speak to another person (my BIL) doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe I should have refused to answer Grandma's questions, but if talking to her was wrong, talking to his wife, or to my husband to talk to his wife wouldn't have been an improvement.

-- OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good, it's good he knows. Busted.

Exactly. I would have been honest with her too. I wouldn't care if she told him. Op already tried to address it with him and I would want Grandma to think I had an issue with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No point in dancing around the truth. Op told the truth and it needed to be said. Mil can take it however and could have said nothing to bil. Bil could very well just say well larla is just paranoid about kids they are all fine.

It’s not up to op to set up a mediate a complex buffer dynamic in her in laws’ family. She doesn’t trust bil to take her kids to the water park, that’s it. Mil suggested it, she said no and explained why. The other peoples’ reactions are not on her. All these other complex scenarios suggested are going to create more trouble and work for op and are not her problem or responsibilities. And frankly if this were a man no one would expect him to do all this extra in-laws work.

+100 The hostility aimed at op is so typical. Misogyny is everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should have kept your mouth shut unless it was directly to your BIL.

And just not let my kids go?

No, if you felt strongly about your brother-in-law, then you should have addressed the issue with him personally and not with his mommy. It was really immature and backstabbing of you.

I have addressed it with him multiple times. I don’t allow my kids to be alone with his him and his kids around water because of it, so simply telling him and letting them go is a problem.

The next step is to delegate to your DH to have a convoluted since presumably in this scenario BIL or his wife is your DHs sibling. If the behavior still doesn’t change, then stay away or leave situations where he is dumping the kids.

I am a widow so this falls to me. Yes, this is his sister’s husband. She dumps the kids too, but she isn’t going on this trip.

Then decline invitations. Problem solved. Use your words like a big girl, and use your words directly to the only two people who are displaying the behavior you don’t like: BIL and his wife. Leave Good Grandma out of it. She has done nothing wrong, so she doesn’t need to hear your complaints.

Wrong. It was Mil’s plan. Op has to explain why it won’t work for her family.

Why does she have to explain it? Or why does she have to use that complete explanation?

because she's being direct and honest. It's so nice not to play games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should have kept your mouth shut unless it was directly to your BIL.

And just not let my kids go?

No, if you felt strongly about your brother-in-law, then you should have addressed the issue with him personally and not with his mommy. It was really immature and backstabbing of you.

I have addressed it with him multiple times. I don’t allow my kids to be alone with his him and his kids around water because of it, so simply telling him and letting them go is a problem.

The next step is to delegate to your DH to have a convoluted since presumably in this scenario BIL or his wife is your DHs sibling. If the behavior still doesn’t change, then stay away or leave situations where he is dumping the kids.

I am a widow so this falls to me. Yes, this is his sister’s husband. She dumps the kids too, but she isn’t going on this trip.

Then decline invitations. Problem solved. Use your words like a big girl, and use your words directly to the only two people who are displaying the behavior you don’t like: BIL and his wife. Leave Good Grandma out of it. She has done nothing wrong, so she doesn’t need to hear your complaints.

Wrong. It was Mil’s plan. Op has to explain why it won’t work for her family.

No, she doesn’t. An explanation is never required. It’s an invitation, not a summons.

“Thank you, but that’s not going to work for our schedule.” The end.

I was invited to an event by a neighbor whose kids are extremely difficult to be around. I declined the invitation by simply saying, “I’m afraid we can’t make it.” No excuse needed to be gracious, ever.

That was great for your situation and doesn't mean it's a rule to be applied to all situations. So many control freaks here. In op's situation Grandma might think she is the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have a tween and teen, how exactly are you expecting them to be supervised at a water park? Or are you just concerned you teen son will be made to supervise his toddler cousin? At a place like GWL, we have our tweens check in with us every 45 minutes or so, but we are not doing every slide with them. I’m a little confused about what the safety issue is for your kids, since yours are a tween and teen.

It’s not GWL it’s a bigger park. I worry that my 15 will be left alone in the park with 5 kids 12 and under including a 1 year old, a situation that I consider pretty stressful.

So tell grandma no? It sounds like too much for her to take 5 kids on her own or with just another adult. And if she's there why is the 15 year old alone? Wouldn't he just go off and do his own thing? I would assume the teen and tweens would run around together nobody is following around big kids at a water park. Only a 1 year old needs to be watched constantly.

So, you'd let a 2 year old run around a place like Water Country USA? To say that only 1 year olds need to be watched at water parks is a little bizarre.

In this situation the 1 year old. Sheesh. The 12 and 15 year olds are fine. OP never said how old the other kid was. So temper your rage weirdo.

BIL has 2 kids between the 1 and 12 year old who are young enough to need eyes on supervision at the water park. No, I haven't said their ages, because I feel like listing the ages is just one more identifying thing.

Why do you think grandma is incapable of watching these 2 kids at the waterpark? The older kids will be self sufficient and doing totally different activities most of the day.

It’s 3 kids if the BIL bails as he has apparently done before. Or more likely he tells op’s kids to watch his kids for him which he has also done. Why does bil need to be protected from the consequences/truth of his own behavior from his mommy? All this ‘dipomacy’ is just enabling his behavior, (and no one does this for bad moms btw.) Op doesn’t want to put her kids in that situation with him and she told mil why.

You don't have to be brutally honest especially if you want to continue the relationship. Is burning this bridge worth it given the closeness of the cousins? OP is not responsible for him or his kids there is no "enabling" here. She simply says no to the trip. None of this puts OP or her kids in an unsafe situation. If you can't deal with the fall out of your frank talk, then you do need diplomacy.

What sexist crap. Op didn't burn a bridge and she wasn't BRUTAL. You are ridiculous. Admit you are miserable and live to put women down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think what you did was ‘tattling’ and who cares if it irks BIL?? Maybe his MIL will guilt him into actually watching his own children! Your job is to protect your kids, and it sounds like you have told BIL to his face repeatedly NOT to dump his kids on your teen, and he doesn’t listen! So I think it’s a good thing you explained why you said no to MIL.

When MIL heard your concerns, did she agree to only bring the older kids? If she already invited the whole family, then you just say no, or you go along and help supervise and/or hold the line with BIL and the kid dumping. Maybe MIL can plan another birthday outing for the tweens, or maybe not, but standing up for your oldest is more important. I am stressed enough looking after my own three kids at a huge water park, I can’t imagine doing it as a teenager with cousins who may or may not listen to him and stay together etc. Not only would it be stressful in the moment, if something were to happen on his watch, he would live with the guilt the rest of his life.

Op cares if it irks the BIL becomes now things are awkward. The cost of being right can be too steep if you ruin relationships.

Why can't you get it in your sexist brain that op isn't ruining a relationship? Think for 2 seconds and tell us who is "ruining a relationship" which I don't believe is even true. You know those people who show up on every post claiming men innately lack the characteristics related to caring for others. Do you not see how men come to be that way and how your beliefs are a part of that problem and if you have sons you've raised them to be this way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just say no to the Great Wolf Lodge and propose something else without sabotaging this relationship. Do you want to alienate this family?

Do you propose alternate birthday parties for other people’s kids?

Dumbass, its OPs kid's birthday too. What do you think "both tweens" means? Now run along and play in traffic.

Well yes but obviously she is planning this as a gift to her grandchild.

NP. “Thank you for thinking of Jason, but that’s not going to work for our schedule. We look forward to seeing you at [next known thing].”

See how that wasn’t hard, or rude, at all?

It is not rude to directly address a problem. Relationships involve conflict.