Anonymous wrote:Wife again: part of the issue stems from when me and op brought our toddler up to visit over the summer and were very clear about how much actual help we could provide. My mom then booked for her and my sister to stay at a very fancy local resort. This was more of a hassle for my uncle (and to a degree me) accommodating more people, locations and schedules. Her sole contribution to the general family situation was to on her night taking care of dinner order some takeout. Otherwise my uncle and I cooked and cleaned up after all other meals. I think that experience has led my uncle to want to go nuclear on my mom and I don’t really blame him - I also am irritated over it.

All irrelevant. My guess is grandma owns what is now a $$$ property in a great resort area and it has a guest house. The local uncle and a cousin do caretaking and property management. Grandma needs to go in assisted living. Also it is not complex to state meals at the house are at 6 pm for example. Persons 1 and 2 are doing the food and cleaning up.

Having a toddler and cleaning up is no huge task. And if the uncle doesn't live in the house why is he there for all meals? Or did uncle and cousin move into grandma's $$$ property? Their residence and the rest of you look at it as family vacation house? IDK.

But the MIL doesn’t help it sounds like

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO DOGS. The uncle is doing a heavy lift and should not be further burdened. He deserves a break. I am so effing sick with dog owners who think they should never have to board their disgusting animals.

Disagree. If taking the dogs is the way that the caregivers get a break, and no one is seriously allergic, the dogs go. But, dog owners are 100% responsible for cleaning up to the condition before the dogs got there. Or the dogs don't come again.

You can't get pissed when people help (regardless of how unfair the situation is) but you don't like the help offered. You'll be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And insisting that your dogs travel with you *into someone else’s home* is also controlling. This is her leverage to get out of any responsibility, which she’s doing nicely. He deserves a break, and to put down boundaries int he home AP that he is tasked with minding. The control /terrorize behaviour is “I won’t fairly meet my responsibilities unless you accommodate my dogs”.

THIS RIGHT HERE. The uncle is also in charge of cleaning the house the vast majority of the time, and I don’t begrudge him not wanting to deal with the extra vacuuming, possible carpet cleaning from accidents, scratches on the floors, stench, and anything else the dogs may cause. I just had my aunt’s dog with me for a few days, and while I love that dog, there is a ton of extra vacuuming involved, the dog had a nervous accident I had to clean up (and I mean it was right after I took her on a 30-minute walk, so no, it wasn’t from lack of outside opportunity), and I had to open the windows for a few days to fully get rid of the dog smell.

The person who puts in beyond the lion’s share of work in this scenario is the one whose preferences should be observed.

Full. Stop.

So now he has no help. Or he makes a young mother with a toddler leave her family for Thanksgiving and still only gets one week off. This is what being right gets him.

*he* does not. The person who is obsessing over not having her precious fur kids does. He’s already doing the heavy lifting, and the people who cannot help ATAH.

This is the constant game played by people who have no intention to help… “I would help if only I could (insert something not really of consequence)”. Then it looks Leig the original person, who is already offering 24/7 sacrifice, is unreasonable.


so, let’s make this clear: the person who is arranging their lives to care for someone else ALL THE TIME gets the choice over the person who can’t board their dogs for 2 weeks (and is thus making a working parent of a toddler feel guilty). All this is designed to make uncle or whoever he is look awful, when his boundaries are actually quite reasonable. This is all crappy family dynamics 101. Add in the whole gossip component and you’ve got a perfect storm.

Bet you $1 when the will comes out and it’s tilted towards uncle, that everyone will suddenly jump to attention,though.

A lovely moral position. In reality, regardless of who you all feel is in the right, he doesn't get to demand it the way he prefers. He can take the help with the dog or not and stay home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO DOGS. The uncle is doing a heavy lift and should not be further burdened. He deserves a break. I am so effing sick with dog owners who think they should never have to board their disgusting animals.

Disagree. If taking the dogs is the way that the caregivers get a break, and no one is seriously allergic, the dogs go. But, dog owners are 100% responsible for cleaning up to the condition before the dogs got there. Or the dogs don't come again.

You can't get pissed when people help (regardless of how unfair the situation is) but you don't like the help offered. You'll be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And insisting that your dogs travel with you *into someone else’s home* is also controlling. This is her leverage to get out of any responsibility, which she’s doing nicely. He deserves a break, and to put down boundaries int he home AP that he is tasked with minding. The control /terrorize behaviour is “I won’t fairly meet my responsibilities unless you accommodate my dogs”.

THIS RIGHT HERE. The uncle is also in charge of cleaning the house the vast majority of the time, and I don’t begrudge him not wanting to deal with the extra vacuuming, possible carpet cleaning from accidents, scratches on the floors, stench, and anything else the dogs may cause. I just had my aunt’s dog with me for a few days, and while I love that dog, there is a ton of extra vacuuming involved, the dog had a nervous accident I had to clean up (and I mean it was right after I took her on a 30-minute walk, so no, it wasn’t from lack of outside opportunity), and I had to open the windows for a few days to fully get rid of the dog smell.

The person who puts in beyond the lion’s share of work in this scenario is the one whose preferences should be observed.

Full. Stop.

So now he has no help. Or he makes a young mother with a toddler leave her family for Thanksgiving and still only gets one week off. This is what being right gets him.

I mean, it's this. He gets no help then. I guess he wins?

The person who is the caregiver, unfortunately, may have the moral right to make these demands. But, in reality, he has no right at all. That is the reality. So he gives a little here or he loses in the end.

You all can make all the moral judgments you want about what's right and wrong, blah, blah, blah. But in the end that doesn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO DOGS. The uncle is doing a heavy lift and should not be further burdened. He deserves a break. I am so effing sick with dog owners who think they should never have to board their disgusting animals.

Disagree. If taking the dogs is the way that the caregivers get a break, and no one is seriously allergic, the dogs go. But, dog owners are 100% responsible for cleaning up to the condition before the dogs got there. Or the dogs don't come again.

You can't get pissed when people help (regardless of how unfair the situation is) but you don't like the help offered. You'll be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And insisting that your dogs travel with you *into someone else’s home* is also controlling. This is her leverage to get out of any responsibility, which she’s doing nicely. He deserves a break, and to put down boundaries int he home AP that he is tasked with minding. The control /terrorize behaviour is “I won’t fairly meet my responsibilities unless you accommodate my dogs”.

THIS RIGHT HERE. The uncle is also in charge of cleaning the house the vast majority of the time, and I don’t begrudge him not wanting to deal with the extra vacuuming, possible carpet cleaning from accidents, scratches on the floors, stench, and anything else the dogs may cause. I just had my aunt’s dog with me for a few days, and while I love that dog, there is a ton of extra vacuuming involved, the dog had a nervous accident I had to clean up (and I mean it was right after I took her on a 30-minute walk, so no, it wasn’t from lack of outside opportunity), and I had to open the windows for a few days to fully get rid of the dog smell.

The person who puts in beyond the lion’s share of work in this scenario is the one whose preferences should be observed.

Full. Stop.

So now he has no help. Or he makes a young mother with a toddler leave her family for Thanksgiving and still only gets one week off. This is what being right gets him.

*he* does not. The person who is obsessing over not having her precious fur kids does. He’s already doing the heavy lifting, and the people who cannot help ATAH.

This is the constant game played by people who have no intention to help… “I would help if only I could (insert something not really of consequence)”. Then it looks Leig the original person, who is already offering 24/7 sacrifice, is unreasonable.


so, let’s make this clear: the person who is arranging their lives to care for someone else ALL THE TIME gets the choice over the person who can’t board their dogs for 2 weeks (and is thus making a working parent of a toddler feel guilty). All this is designed to make uncle or whoever he is look awful, when his boundaries are actually quite reasonable. This is all crappy family dynamics 101. Add in the whole gossip component and you’ve got a perfect storm.

Bet you $1 when the will comes out and it’s tilted towards uncle, that everyone will suddenly jump to attention,though.

He is doing this by choice. His choices do not confer obligations on other family members when everyone agrees it is time for 24 hour care or assisted living. His choices do not make him the boss.

He is not entitled to two weeks off because he doesn’t like his choices right now. OP is only prolonging a toxic dynamic by getting involved in this disagreement— the care responsibilities are between the siblings. They can work it out.

Wife again: part of the issue stems from when me and op brought our toddler up to visit over the summer and were very clear about how much actual help we could provide. My mom then booked for her and my sister to stay at a very fancy local resort. This was more of a hassle for my uncle (and to a degree me) accommodating more people, locations and schedules. Her sole contribution to the general family situation was to on her night taking care of dinner order some takeout. Otherwise my uncle and I cooked and cleaned up after all other meals. I think that experience has led my uncle to want to go nuclear on my mom and I don’t really blame him - I also am irritated over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO DOGS. The uncle is doing a heavy lift and should not be further burdened. He deserves a break. I am so effing sick with dog owners who think they should never have to board their disgusting animals.

Disagree. If taking the dogs is the way that the caregivers get a break, and no one is seriously allergic, the dogs go. But, dog owners are 100% responsible for cleaning up to the condition before the dogs got there. Or the dogs don't come again.

You can't get pissed when people help (regardless of how unfair the situation is) but you don't like the help offered. You'll be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And insisting that your dogs travel with you *into someone else’s home* is also controlling. This is her leverage to get out of any responsibility, which she’s doing nicely. He deserves a break, and to put down boundaries int he home AP that he is tasked with minding. The control /terrorize behaviour is “I won’t fairly meet my responsibilities unless you accommodate my dogs”.

THIS RIGHT HERE. The uncle is also in charge of cleaning the house the vast majority of the time, and I don’t begrudge him not wanting to deal with the extra vacuuming, possible carpet cleaning from accidents, scratches on the floors, stench, and anything else the dogs may cause. I just had my aunt’s dog with me for a few days, and while I love that dog, there is a ton of extra vacuuming involved, the dog had a nervous accident I had to clean up (and I mean it was right after I took her on a 30-minute walk, so no, it wasn’t from lack of outside opportunity), and I had to open the windows for a few days to fully get rid of the dog smell.

The person who puts in beyond the lion’s share of work in this scenario is the one whose preferences should be observed.

Full. Stop.

So now he has no help. Or he makes a young mother with a toddler leave her family for Thanksgiving and still only gets one week off. This is what being right gets him.

*he* does not. The person who is obsessing over not having her precious fur kids does. He’s already doing the heavy lifting, and the people who cannot help ATAH.

This is the constant game played by people who have no intention to help… “I would help if only I could (insert something not really of consequence)”. Then it looks Leig the original person, who is already offering 24/7 sacrifice, is unreasonable.


so, let’s make this clear: the person who is arranging their lives to care for someone else ALL THE TIME gets the choice over the person who can’t board their dogs for 2 weeks (and is thus making a working parent of a toddler feel guilty). All this is designed to make uncle or whoever he is look awful, when his boundaries are actually quite reasonable. This is all crappy family dynamics 101. Add in the whole gossip component and you’ve got a perfect storm.

Bet you $1 when the will comes out and it’s tilted towards uncle, that everyone will suddenly jump to attention,though.

Anonymous wrote:I am an obsessive dog owner and I say no dogs. And MIL needs to do more in general.

Thing is, she doesn’t. No one can make her AND since he controls the finances she can say “hire help bro, I don’t have the spare time”. All the internet opinions in the world don’t get MIL to do one day— not one minute— of care.

What does get her to do that care is bringing her dogs for two weeks, and by OPs description they’re not even in the same house. Obviously he doesn’t really need the help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO DOGS. The uncle is doing a heavy lift and should not be further burdened. He deserves a break. I am so effing sick with dog owners who think they should never have to board their disgusting animals.

Disagree. If taking the dogs is the way that the caregivers get a break, and no one is seriously allergic, the dogs go. But, dog owners are 100% responsible for cleaning up to the condition before the dogs got there. Or the dogs don't come again.

You can't get pissed when people help (regardless of how unfair the situation is) but you don't like the help offered. You'll be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And insisting that your dogs travel with you *into someone else’s home* is also controlling. This is her leverage to get out of any responsibility, which she’s doing nicely. He deserves a break, and to put down boundaries int he home AP that he is tasked with minding. The control /terrorize behaviour is “I won’t fairly meet my responsibilities unless you accommodate my dogs”.

THIS RIGHT HERE. The uncle is also in charge of cleaning the house the vast majority of the time, and I don’t begrudge him not wanting to deal with the extra vacuuming, possible carpet cleaning from accidents, scratches on the floors, stench, and anything else the dogs may cause. I just had my aunt’s dog with me for a few days, and while I love that dog, there is a ton of extra vacuuming involved, the dog had a nervous accident I had to clean up (and I mean it was right after I took her on a 30-minute walk, so no, it wasn’t from lack of outside opportunity), and I had to open the windows for a few days to fully get rid of the dog smell.

The person who puts in beyond the lion’s share of work in this scenario is the one whose preferences should be observed.

Full. Stop.

So now he has no help. Or he makes a young mother with a toddler leave her family for Thanksgiving and still only gets one week off. This is what being right gets him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO DOGS. The uncle is doing a heavy lift and should not be further burdened. He deserves a break. I am so effing sick with dog owners who think they should never have to board their disgusting animals.

Disagree. If taking the dogs is the way that the caregivers get a break, and no one is seriously allergic, the dogs go. But, dog owners are 100% responsible for cleaning up to the condition before the dogs got there. Or the dogs don't come again.

You can't get pissed when people help (regardless of how unfair the situation is) but you don't like the help offered. You'll be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And insisting that your dogs travel with you *into someone else’s home* is also controlling. This is her leverage to get out of any responsibility, which she’s doing nicely. He deserves a break, and to put down boundaries int he home AP that he is tasked with minding. The control /terrorize behaviour is “I won’t fairly meet my responsibilities unless you accommodate my dogs”.

THIS RIGHT HERE. The uncle is also in charge of cleaning the house the vast majority of the time, and I don’t begrudge him not wanting to deal with the extra vacuuming, possible carpet cleaning from accidents, scratches on the floors, stench, and anything else the dogs may cause. I just had my aunt’s dog with me for a few days, and while I love that dog, there is a ton of extra vacuuming involved, the dog had a nervous accident I had to clean up (and I mean it was right after I took her on a 30-minute walk, so no, it wasn’t from lack of outside opportunity), and I had to open the windows for a few days to fully get rid of the dog smell.

The person who puts in beyond the lion’s share of work in this scenario is the one whose preferences should be observed.

Full. Stop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No to the dogs. Even if a passive aggressive zing - just no.

Are you going to pay to put dogs in kennel? I am a dog owner and even if you paid for a kennel, I would not leave my dogs in a kennel for that long. Love me, love my dog

Having a dog means having to kennel them sometimes or finding a friend to take care of them.

I would not board my dogs for two weeks. And expecting the mother to be without her family on Thanksgiving so he can go on vacation is 100% unreasonable of the uncle.

It's OK for a person to say, "my boundary is, I am not boarding my dogs for two weeks". And the other person says, "well you can't bring them here". And so person #1 says, "I can only stay one week then". Each person has their boundaries. No one can force person #1 to come for two weeks, and no one should force person #2 to accept dogs. - dog lover

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO DOGS. The uncle is doing a heavy lift and should not be further burdened. He deserves a break. I am so effing sick with dog owners who think they should never have to board their disgusting animals.

Disagree. If taking the dogs is the way that the caregivers get a break, and no one is seriously allergic, the dogs go. But, dog owners are 100% responsible for cleaning up to the condition before the dogs got there. Or the dogs don't come again.

You can't get pissed when people help (regardless of how unfair the situation is) but you don't like the help offered. You'll be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And insisting that your dogs travel with you *into someone else’s home* is also controlling. This is her leverage to get out of any responsibility, which she’s doing nicely. He deserves a break, and to put down boundaries int he home AP that he is tasked with minding. The control /terrorize behaviour is “I won’t fairly meet my responsibilities unless you accommodate my dogs”.

I am an obsessive dog owner and I say no dogs. And MIL needs to do more in general.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ops wife here and when my uncle first brought up this dog drama to me I asked him what he would prefer: my mom to go up with dogs coming or her to totally bail on going as that’s what I predicted would be her reaction. The dogs apparently were a sticking point for him.

Then your uncle cares more about control than he does about needing break. You don’t get to dictate the terms under which someone does you a favor, and if he’s guardian/PoA than at the end of the day he’s decided this is his responsibility.

At the end of the day, regardless of you who agree with, it's this. He's being controlling - fine. He's doing the heavy lifting. But he should then be prepared for MIL to bail and then what?

Anonymous wrote:NO DOGS. The uncle is doing a heavy lift and should not be further burdened. He deserves a break. I am so effing sick with dog owners who think they should never have to board their disgusting animals.

Disagree. If taking the dogs is the way that the caregivers get a break, and no one is seriously allergic, the dogs go. But, dog owners are 100% responsible for cleaning up to the condition before the dogs got there. Or the dogs don't come again.

You can't get pissed when people help (regardless of how unfair the situation is) but you don't like the help offered. You'll be cutting off your nose to spite your face.