I would talk to your parents and see what they think.

My parents are well off, not super rich but pensions, SS and military retirement make them very, very comfortable. My FIL, made some very bad decisions in his life and only has meager SS coming in. We bought a house specifically so he could live with us.

My parents consider him family. Anything they can do to help us or him, they will do. FIL hates that he is in a position that he needs financial help. But when my parents get a new car, we will get their old one and give it to FIL. That's what family does for each other.

Beyond setting a boundary, I think you need to be much more explicit about your feelings. "Dad, when you stay I should stay at home, it's like you are saying I am a bad mother. This HURTS me. Is it your intention to hurt me? Do you seriously think I am a bad mother? What is it you think I will do, do you think your saying this will totally make me revise my world view and stop working? If not, what are you trying to achieve here?"
Then after giving him that to think about, refuse to talk with him about it anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notice how the OP hasn't responded...can't face this reality check!

Ouch! Down, Rover, down!

As the movie title says, "Reality Bites."

Anonymous wrote:Notice how the OP hasn't responded...can't face this reality check!

Ouch! Down, Rover, down!

Notice how the OP hasn't responded...can't face this reality check!

Instead of judgment I will just answer your question. No- one set of grandparents should NOT pay for the other. It sounds like you don't have the money to loan them and the in-laws certainly shouldn't be loaning them any money.

Anonymous wrote:In a different thread we were discussing responsibility to ILs (or parents) when they have been financially irresponsible and you are not flowing is cash. The following scenario came up:

One set of parents completely unhelpful, uninvolved (Set A). Another set of parents providing lots of help- childcare, financial help, etc (Set B). At the end of the day, Set A needs the help from you but the financial offerings of Set B are what make you capable of helping Set A. Essentially, Set B will be providing for Set A with you as the intermediary.

Is it fair? You married your spouse and chose to take on his family. Your parents did not make that choice but do make the choice to help you and your DH/kids. Should they essentially choose between bearing the burden of helping your extended family or do they cut you off- thereby rendering you unable to offer help?

We have a small amount extra right now because Set B pays for our childcare. Without that, we would have no extra money at all.

You should not have children if you cannot afford basic necessities for child and child care is a necessity. Talk about irresponsible!

Did set A actually ask with a specific request/reason or are you assuming?

Some people cry poverty for attention or because there is a materialistic goal they want but can't meet. (I.e. "Oh we can't afford the type of car we want. We are the poorest family on the street." Vs real issue "dad has cancer and can't work. We can't afford to buy medicine because we lost our health insurance and can barely afford to eat.")

If it's a life or death situation or they are absolutely about to be homeless -- then (up to you but) helping them out in a true crisis might not be the end of the world. But I agree with PP - if you can't pay your own bills, then it's not the time and place to give others money.

Also - my ILs are financially better off and are both retired. They have a beautiful house in an inexpensive city. They can afford things like nicer gifts and have the time to travel and be more involved with the kids. My parents are both still working, live in a city as or more expensive than DC in a tiny house, they are both civil servants abd pack evey extra penny away for retirement and to pay high COL / taxes. They see the kids evey 6 months. You parents may be worse off -- but the point is that not everyone starts out on equal footing...

DCUM is a great example...all the posts about down payments from parents to buy million houses...vs folks drowning in student loans.

Why is this even a question when you apparently can't even pay your own bills?

1. Life is not fair.

2. You better be sure GPB are not draining their retirement savings by helping you out with childcare before accepting such help from them.

3. No, you should not direct any funds to GPA because if you need GPB to pay for childcare, you can't even afford your own life.

The bigger issue is if grandparents are paying for child care because you cannot afford it, then you are not living within your means and you need to look at your spending too rather than criticizing the other grandparents. If you don't want to help, then don't. Don't use the other set of parents who are allowing you to live above your means as an excuse.

Set B is helping YOU not set A. They'd probably stop helping you if they knew their money wasn't being used by YOU but rather you're giving it to A. Use the money for it's intended purpose. If set A doesn't have $$ and isn't willing to do anything to earn any either by helping you or by getting paid work, and they're otherwise able bodied (or were when they were younger) then that's not your problem.

Anonymous wrote:In a different thread we were discussing responsibility to ILs (or parents) when they have been financially irresponsible and you are not flowing is cash. The following scenario came up:

One set of parents completely unhelpful, uninvolved (Set A). Another set of parents providing lots of help- childcare, financial help, etc (Set B). At the end of the day, Set A needs the help from you but the financial offerings of Set B are what make you capable of helping Set A. Essentially, Set B will be providing for Set A with you as the intermediary.

Is it fair? You married your spouse and chose to take on his family. Your parents did not make that choice but do make the choice to help you and your DH/kids. Should they essentially choose between bearing the burden of helping your extended family or do they cut you off- thereby rendering you unable to offer help?

We have a small amount extra right now because Set B pays for our childcare. Without that, we would have no extra money at all.

If you can't pay for a routine, necessary, foundational expense like child care without help, you are in no financial position to help others.

In a different thread we were discussing responsibility to ILs (or parents) when they have been financially irresponsible and you are not flowing is cash. The following scenario came up:

One set of parents completely unhelpful, uninvolved (Set A). Another set of parents providing lots of help- childcare, financial help, etc (Set B). At the end of the day, Set A needs the help from you but the financial offerings of Set B are what make you capable of helping Set A. Essentially, Set B will be providing for Set A with you as the intermediary.

Is it fair? You married your spouse and chose to take on his family. Your parents did not make that choice but do make the choice to help you and your DH/kids. Should they essentially choose between bearing the burden of helping your extended family or do they cut you off- thereby rendering you unable to offer help?

We have a small amount extra right now because Set B pays for our childcare. Without that, we would have no extra money at all.