Anonymous wrote:The thing with these thread is that people don't really consider the OP's story. They simply respond based on their own story. I always laugh at the people who recommend divorce instantly whenever someone posts with a marriage problem. No questions. No clarifications. Just "DIVORCE!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Bye, Nancy Drew. Something doesn't add up in your own life if you have time to be a bitch online about someone else's life.

Isn't that what you're doing? Bitching about your mother-in-law's life? You asked if you were wrong, but don't want to hear it when people say, yes, you are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is perfectly reasonable. I would feel exactly the same in her position. Just because people are family does not mean you have to sacrifice your life to help them when all their lives they have done nothing but the bare minimum to help. If they need a few thousand dollars for an operation or some such then yes, you have an obligation. But to have them live with you, potentially for decades, because they have failed to provide for themselves when they had every opportunity? No way.


Even if this woman does not want to provide childcare, her own kids have been out of the house for how long? 20 years? She could easily get a job herself in retail or whatever. It isn't like CVS appears to be particularly picky. But she is lazy. What goes around comes around.

So why doesn't the husband talk to his parents about making a reasonable retirement plan? Everyone I know has either helped their parents make a plan or are aware of their parents assets and plans. And that includes a few parents who have made extremely bad choices. I can't imagine walking away from my parents just because they made mistakes. You all sound like awful people.

Really?? Is this true? I'm financially savvy and have no clue about either my parents or inlaws retirement plans or assets. I believe my parents have plenty saved, but don't really know. I come from an open family and this would never come up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think I have ever encountered such selfish women as I see on dcum. My mil was a royal bitch who showed no interest in her grandchildren and by all accounts was a a pretty awful mom. We still supported her for over a decade. She was family, she gave birth to my Dh and her care was our obligation. What the hell has become of our society where everything is tit for tat and no one does the right thing simply because it is the right thing?

I thought being a martyr was its own reward, but clearly you want a pat on the back: Congrats. You're a sucker who let a selfish bitch bleed you. You win?

No, no, no... being a martyr isn't its own reward. Being a martyr is rewarded by being allowed to feel superior to everyone else and by yelling at anonymous people about how much better you are than them.

Lol! So true. Martyrs are never content to do their "good" works. They have to let as many people know as possible. Worst sort of drama queen behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is perfectly reasonable. I would feel exactly the same in her position. Just because people are family does not mean you have to sacrifice your life to help them when all their lives they have done nothing but the bare minimum to help. If they need a few thousand dollars for an operation or some such then yes, you have an obligation. But to have them live with you, potentially for decades, because they have failed to provide for themselves when they had every opportunity? No way.
Even if this woman does not want to provide childcare, her own kids have been out of the house for how long? 20 years? She could easily get a job herself in retail or whatever. It isn't like CVS appears to be particularly picky. But she is lazy. What goes around comes around.

So why doesn't the husband talk to his parents about making a reasonable retirement plan? Everyone I know has either helped their parents make a plan or are aware of their parents assets and plans. And that includes a few parents who have made extremely bad choices. I can't imagine walking away from my parents just because they made mistakes. You all sound like awful people.

Anonymous wrote:^^Bye, Nancy Drew. Something doesn't add up in your own life if you have time to be a bitch online about someone else's life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consensus in the thread asking why grandparents no longer provide child care seems to be that grandparents don't owe their kids and grandkids squat. Okay, I can agree with that. But is the reverse true?

DH's parents live close enough to help with our daughter and his mother is a lifelong SAHM. She is only 59, but prefers to keep her schedule open to watch TV all day, travel a few times a year, and make gossipy phone calls. So, we pay for child care and it is really eating into our finances. I am fine with this. Our kid, our problem.

Here's the rub: DH's parents have zero in retirement savings. Social security and DH's Dad working until he dies is what they are banking on. I make a good amount of money (more than DH) and kill myself to earn it. DH's mother has started dropping hints lately about how nice it would be for us all to move in together one day. They don't have jack shit to contribute, so I know DH and I would be basically carrying them financially, with the bulk coming from me. That is what DH's mother is after.

Recently, she made a joke about living with us and I responded with a grin: "Paying for child care is eating through the money we'd have helped you with." She dropped the topic quickly. I don't think I owe her and FIL squat. She has spent her life as she pleases, staying home instead of building financial security by working, not giving a red cent to DH for college because thinks kids are responsible for their own education, and refusing to help with her grandkid because she would rather catch up on talk shows. Am I wrong? I think DH will go along with what I decide.

Setting boundaries are good. Discussing and coming to those boundaries and coming to an agreed upon plan together with your spouse is even better. I may be prudent to have them not move in with you, but you may still have to subsidize them in the future. IME and IMO, there isn't a quid pro quo with family. You do it because of who you are not because of what they did for you. Another aspect is that your children are watching and learning from your behavior.

Are you someone who promises to help healthy and capable people when they ignore your own problems and needs and also refuse to help even themselves? Does that make you feel good about "who you are?" That seems might twisted to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consensus in the thread asking why grandparents no longer provide child care seems to be that grandparents don't owe their kids and grandkids squat. Okay, I can agree with that. But is the reverse true?

DH's parents live close enough to help with our daughter and his mother is a lifelong SAHM. She is only 59, but prefers to keep her schedule open to watch TV all day, travel a few times a year, and make gossipy phone calls. So, we pay for child care and it is really eating into our finances. I am fine with this. Our kid, our problem.

Here's the rub: DH's parents have zero in retirement savings. Social security and DH's Dad working until he dies is what they are banking on. I make a good amount of money (more than DH) and kill myself to earn it. DH's mother has started dropping hints lately about how nice it would be for us all to move in together one day. They don't have jack shit to contribute, so I know DH and I would be basically carrying them financially, with the bulk coming from me. That is what DH's mother is after.

Recently, she made a joke about living with us and I responded with a grin: "Paying for child care is eating through the money we'd have helped you with." She dropped the topic quickly. I don't think I owe her and FIL squat. She has spent her life as she pleases, staying home instead of building financial security by working, not giving a red cent to DH for college because thinks kids are responsible for their own education, and refusing to help with her grandkid because she would rather catch up on talk shows. Am I wrong? I think DH will go along with what I decide.

Setting boundaries are good. Discussing and coming to those boundaries and coming to an agreed upon plan together with your spouse is even better. I may be prudent to have them not move in with you, but you may still have to subsidize them in the future. IME and IMO, there isn't a quid pro quo with family. You do it because of who you are not because of what they did for you. Another aspect is that your children are watching and learning from your behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:quote=Anonymous]
So why would you want someone you obviously think has poor judgement to raise your child? Sounds like MIL's not the only one trying to get something for nothin'. I guess it's true that men marry women just like their mothers.

Now that you have gotten that out of your system, you might want to try reading the thread.

I did, every painful word. You don't like her, you think she's lazy and gossipy, and yet you want her to raise your child. I get that you're concerned about their future in so far as it impacts you. You are not the only couple on the planet who had parents who didn't plan well. But you also sound like you are a judgmental bean counter. You're doing it to your husband, too, by the way.

Make a plan with your husband about what you can and cannot do for them. Then share it with them so that they can plan accordingly. If they wash their hands of you, so be it. You don't seem to care much for them anyway.