If the store isn't too far away, do multiple store runs rather than one big trip so there's not a stockpile that you paid for and others can eat all of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(I should add that my MIL and FIL would probably pay for all of the food themselves but I don't think that's fair - we're all adults, and we should split the cost of the trip, so I would feel guilty eating food they had paid for when I could afford to buy my own.)

This line suggest to me you're thinking about this in a petty, immature way...

So it's petty and immature of me to think that I shouldn't have my retired in-laws pay for my food when I could afford it? I'm seriously asking not to pick a fight, I appreciate others' opinions on this because my friends and family are too close to this to see straight.

No, it's petty and immature to not let your in-laws resolve this problem with their own family in the way they think is best. Why is it so important to you that it get resolved in the way YOU think is best? It's their side of the family.

Except that they're, in part, using OP's hard-earned money to resolve the problem.

Anonymous wrote:Let MIL and FIL purchase all the food.

Agree on an amount with your husband (750 same as last year?) and he does the shopping. When the food is gone and you have to feed your children, he goes to the store again. You take the kids to McDonald's and the beach.

Don't go on these annual trips with the ILs. Your SIL is happy to mooch and her parents are happy to pay her way.

This.

Maybe that's the dynamic in your dh's family? .
Not having food for your kids when you bought it would make me angry too. What about figuring sil family into the budget, and working it out with MIL? Here's the budget for food for all of us for the week, so we don't run out and go hungry in the morning, let's split it, sent to all involved? That at, SIL and MIL can talk and decide how they want to handle it. Mil can pay for half if she wants, you and DH could pay for other half.

If I wasn't running out of food, I would not care.

For me, it wouldn't be so much the issue of $, but doing all the planning and shopping but not having food there when I needed it after doing all the work. However, it isn't particularly nice or practical to have each family have its own stash - that means fitting double amounts of milk, juice in the fridge.

So, suggest a communal kitchen but take turns shopping and keep track of receipts and divide in half. You could argue per person and your kids as toddlers eat less so you should be able to do less than half but I'd let that go.

And next year after that, get your own house.

Rent your own house nearby.

What my i laws do is split up a list of things everyone will use. The only time this irritated me is when we were told to buy specific breakfast items that not only do we not eat, but neither did anyone else. I have no idea who they thought was going to eat it. But maybe ask them to bring the things ypu know got eaten last year, like 6 loaves of bread and a few other things. You will probably still have to but more, but at least they will be helping out. I think someone needs to make it clear that two meals I'd two meals and leftovers are fair game for lunch.

Your husband needs to be the person communicating this.

Everyone contributes a set amount to the grocery budget. Repeat when necessary. Budget for small children in half of that for adults. Puberty and later budgeted same as adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(I should add that my MIL and FIL would probably pay for all of the food themselves but I don't think that's fair - we're all adults, and we should split the cost of the trip, so I would feel guilty eating food they had paid for when I could afford to buy my own.)

This line suggest to me you're thinking about this in a petty, immature way...

So it's petty and immature of me to think that I shouldn't have my retired in-laws pay for my food when I could afford it? I'm seriously asking not to pick a fight, I appreciate others' opinions on this because my friends and family are too close to this to see straight.

No, it's petty and immature to not let your in-laws resolve this problem with their own family in the way they think is best. Why is it so important to you that it get resolved in the way YOU think is best? It's their side of the family.

OP is part of "their side of the family."

What, is she an alien interloper that provided a gestational pod for the grandchildren, and now gets treated like an outsider?

You win for DCUM rhetorical nonsense of the day.

That's the point of "side" of the family. She's still in the family, but in this case, it is not her history of custom that prevails.

Nice custom. You pay I eat.

And shut up while you pay. You aren't "the right side of the family."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(I should add that my MIL and FIL would probably pay for all of the food themselves but I don't think that's fair - we're all adults, and we should split the cost of the trip, so I would feel guilty eating food they had paid for when I could afford to buy my own.)

This line suggest to me you're thinking about this in a petty, immature way...

So it's petty and immature of me to think that I shouldn't have my retired in-laws pay for my food when I could afford it? I'm seriously asking not to pick a fight, I appreciate others' opinions on this because my friends and family are too close to this to see straight.

No, it's petty and immature to not let your in-laws resolve this problem with their own family in the way they think is best. Why is it so important to you that it get resolved in the way YOU think is best? It's their side of the family.

OP is part of "their side of the family."

What, is she an alien interloper that provided a gestational pod for the grandchildren, and now gets treated like an outsider?

You win for DCUM rhetorical nonsense of the day.

That's the point of "side" of the family. She's still in the family, but in this case, it is not her history of custom that prevails.

Nice custom. You pay I eat.

You just seem filled with bitterness and resentment, OP. Yes, your sister-in-law should have volunteered to contribute some money for groceries. But to fight with your husband about this, and dwell on this for a year, and to draw in so many other examples of how your sister-in-law supposedly is an inferior person...it just suggests this isn't about the groceries at all, but about something else entirely. And it doesn't feel generous or kind.

If you care so much, just don't go grocery shopping. Let your husband handle it. But it would be an act of love to be generous to your in-laws, even if you think they don't deserve it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(I should add that my MIL and FIL would probably pay for all of the food themselves but I don't think that's fair - we're all adults, and we should split the cost of the trip, so I would feel guilty eating food they had paid for when I could afford to buy my own.)

This line suggest to me you're thinking about this in a petty, immature way...

So it's petty and immature of me to think that I shouldn't have my retired in-laws pay for my food when I could afford it? I'm seriously asking not to pick a fight, I appreciate others' opinions on this because my friends and family are too close to this to see straight.

No, it's petty and immature to not let your in-laws resolve this problem with their own family in the way they think is best. Why is it so important to you that it get resolved in the way YOU think is best? It's their side of the family.

OP is part of "their side of the family."

What, is she an alien interloper that provided a gestational pod for the grandchildren, and now gets treated like an outsider?

You win for DCUM rhetorical nonsense of the day.

That's the point of "side" of the family. She's still in the family, but in this case, it is not her history of custom that prevails.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can control yourself, not other people.

So focus on what YOU can do in this situation.

That's what I want to do. Do you have any suggestions on how to do this? Meditation? Mindfulness? Writing out my frustrations on paper and then throwing them in the ocean?

New pp here.
Yes. That would all help. Meditation will transform your life. You will stop giving a shot about other people's choices. It tastes like freedom.

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't feel bad about not wanting to pay your SILs food expenses.

It's ridiculous your SIL does this, and f-n rude as hell.

You and your spouse work hard. They have a different lifestyle, fine.

But just because you and your spouse both work and make more money does not mean you should happily pay their way on vacation.

They should budget enough money to pay for at least some of their food, and make low cost meals to serve if each family is responsible for a meal or two.

They are adults. They take advantage of you and your FIL and MIL.

Why people here are siding with them is beyond me.

You have no way of knowing if they're taking advantage of FIL and MIL. Different families have different customs. My parents pay for nearly everything when we go on vacation. They also have plenty of money, and the difference between a $750 food bill and a $0 food bill would not even register with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(I should add that my MIL and FIL would probably pay for all of the food themselves but I don't think that's fair - we're all adults, and we should split the cost of the trip, so I would feel guilty eating food they had paid for when I could afford to buy my own.)

This line suggest to me you're thinking about this in a petty, immature way...

So it's petty and immature of me to think that I shouldn't have my retired in-laws pay for my food when I could afford it? I'm seriously asking not to pick a fight, I appreciate others' opinions on this because my friends and family are too close to this to see straight.

No, it's petty and immature to not let your in-laws resolve this problem with their own family in the way they think is best. Why is it so important to you that it get resolved in the way YOU think is best? It's their side of the family.

OP is part of "their side of the family."

What, is she an alien interloper that provided a gestational pod for the grandchildren, and now gets treated like an outsider?