Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what you mean- I have been pondering this myself. My in-laws watch one set of grandkids and we are pregnant with our first and they have not offered the same to us. Even watching the baby 1 day a week would save us so much money and it hurts that one set of grandkids gets this financial burden lifted off of them and have a loving grandparent to watch this part time. My husband doesn't think things necessarily have to be "fair" but it makes me want to try to be fair across all my future grandkids because it does breed resentment.

Holy crap. These senior citizens are looking after multiple small children and you want to stick a newborn with them too? Because it will save you money?

If you are resenting them then there is something seriously wrong with you. Grow up.

It obviously about fairness... if one set of grandkids gets tons of time with grandparents and the other set is not treated the same, how is that fair? How could that not breed resentment? It is their decision so whatever but for my own future grandkids I will try to be equal because even if it is their right- it does breed resent to have one set cared for while the other set is not care for at all.

NP here. JFC, get over yourself. You want free childcare from your in-laws because they already are watching other grandchildren who ARE ALREADY OUT OF THE WOMB?! Do these parents look like a daycare center? You lost, your husband’s sibling already had kids before you so the daycare is full. People who expect free childcare from grandparents shouldn’t be having kids. You sound ridiculous.

No one said anything about expecting things in fact we waiting because we were saving for childcare while the other sibling went ahead and bullied them into caring for the kids since they could not afford childcare. That is not the point. The point is that I’m sad my kids won’t have as close a relationship with their grandparents because it does leads to inequality when you set a precedent like that. You are already more use to the kids and care for them more- the more you care for something the more you feel for that person. I know this because I was that grand child that was raised with my grandma and I’m absolutely closer to her than the other grandkids. I just think grandparents should be aware of this dynamic going forward and try make things equal if they can or be mindful of the impact.

Oh, now your story's changing. Before you said that you were mad because they weren't going to save you money on childcare. Now it's all about the emotional bond they won't have with their grandparents? In your original post you moaned about the "financial burden" and now it's allllll about grandma time?

You are SO out of line here. Any wedge driven here between your in-laws and your kids will be driven by you and your massive sense of entitlement, not by them. D

Listen to your husband, who seems a lot more reasonable and less spoiled than you are.

One last question -- do you expect them to stop looking after the other sibling's kids? Or are you insane enough to think that a newborn and two small kids are a reasonable burden to dump on two senior citizens? Or do you not care how it happens as long as you get to save that daycare $$?

NP. What seems fair, actually, is that the sibling benefiting from the free grandparent childcare pay some money toward the other sibling's childcare. Why should one sibling get free childcare and the other doesn't, just because they had kids first? That's really weird. Your response, PP above, is ridiculously aggressive. My guess is that you're a sibling that gets the free childcare, and you're scared to lose it.

NP, but this is crazy. Mom is not a shared financial resource. What you "fairness" PP's are missing is the element of grandparent choice involved. They aren't just ATMs that you can assume are broken if they give out more money to one customer than another. My mom provided free childcare to my sister for 7 years. They live near to each other and my sister is a single mom. She doesn't owe me money for daycare, FFS.

Of course, not. That’s not what I’m suggesting at all. However, if all other factors are equal (e.g. no single parent situation) decent, functional human beings work together to create an equitable situation.

I forgot to add, if a grandparent is providing free childcare...they are acting as a financial resource. Without this free service, the recipient of the service would bring paying for these services.

That doesn't make them a SHARED financial resource, owned by their kids (which is what "sibling should reimburse the ones who don't get childcare" means). It's the grandparent's own time to use as they see fit. If they spend it helping a specific kid out with childcare, it doesn't mean they owe all their other kids the same. It also doesn't mean that kid owes their siblings money. (That's legitimately the craziest thing in this crazy thread.) If adult human beings could just accept that they aren't owed anything by their parents in the first place, maybe they could stop tracking how much extra they believe their parents owe them now since they had the temerity to spend their time/money/effort on anything but you or your kids.

There are variations of this trope on pretty much half the threads in this family forum. Pretty much everyone agrees on one thing: grandparents don't owe their kids anything. Grandparents get to spend their money and time any way they see fit.

However, like I said in my earlier response, decent people make things fair when all the other variables are the same. If grandparents have made the choice to provide a free, and typically very expensive, service to one member of the family why would all parties involved not share this? Your very intense response tells me you have a personal stake in this issue. Are you mooching off your parents or inlaws?

DP

Because all these parties are not “involved.” It’s not anyone’s business but the grandparents. Thinking other adult children are “involved” means that those adults think they are entitled to their parents’ money/time/energy. Why do you think that?

Anonymous wrote:Grandparents are free to do anything they want. However, all choices have consequences. People are also free to judge and make inferences on why other people do what they do. Freedom goes in every direction.

Anonymous wrote:

OP here. The divorce happened when the child was a toddler. My sister makes more money than any of us. She can more than afford private school or a move, but she prefers to spend it on trips, jewelry for herself and other extras. I didn't stick my nose into her business. At Thanksgiving, when we announced what we are thankful for, my niece said she was thankful for our generous parents paying for private school and my sister jumped in and thanked them as well. My brother asked our sister more about this funding privately and yep, every year they pay for private school. She was proud of it. One of my kids did OT, PT and ST for years and could have benefited from a SN private school early on though, but we did not even consider it due to expense. We hired advocates over the years and made the public school work well over time and now after years of therapies, etc the issues are considered mild. If my niece has issues they are certainly more mild than our child's were early on. Both our kids are happy at public though. My brother's son had significant medical issues at birth and it caused them financial hardship to pay. This is coming to a head now because my brother was furloughed and my parents know. His wife lost her job. Nobody is running to their rescue. Nobody has explained why one adult child was favored and yes, it is hurtful. I said I take the high road with them. I don't my brother's idea of confronting them will do any good and I don't want a big fight over money. I do see this is something I will not do with my own kids unless there are significant issues that warrant it (like medical issues or disability) and I will explain or try to make things equal. I honestly wish I did not know about this. It had not even occurred to me they would ever do this because they even shared a story years ago of their friends' adult child asking for private school funding for the grandkids and how entitled that is. I still love my parents, but I am being honest in saying it causes resentment toward them and my sister.

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you what it looks like after the grandparents die. Total resentment and total anarchy. All grudges get pulled out and the venom spews. It ain’t pretty.

Anonymous wrote:I know numerous families with a dynamic where the parents provide disproportionate attention/childcare/money to their most screwed up child (and the grandchildren in that household), and don’t even try to hide it because they’re confident that their other children are doing just fine and that everyone recognizes that the most screwed up kid needs the most help. OP, the silver lining here is that your parents view you as a competent adult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what you mean- I have been pondering this myself. My in-laws watch one set of grandkids and we are pregnant with our first and they have not offered the same to us. Even watching the baby 1 day a week would save us so much money and it hurts that one set of grandkids gets this financial burden lifted off of them and have a loving grandparent to watch this part time. My husband doesn't think things necessarily have to be "fair" but it makes me want to try to be fair across all my future grandkids because it does breed resentment.

Holy crap. These senior citizens are looking after multiple small children and you want to stick a newborn with them too? Because it will save you money?

If you are resenting them then there is something seriously wrong with you. Grow up.

It obviously about fairness... if one set of grandkids gets tons of time with grandparents and the other set is not treated the same, how is that fair? How could that not breed resentment? It is their decision so whatever but for my own future grandkids I will try to be equal because even if it is their right- it does breed resent to have one set cared for while the other set is not care for at all.

NP here. JFC, get over yourself. You want free childcare from your in-laws because they already are watching other grandchildren who ARE ALREADY OUT OF THE WOMB?! Do these parents look like a daycare center? You lost, your husband’s sibling already had kids before you so the daycare is full. People who expect free childcare from grandparents shouldn’t be having kids. You sound ridiculous.

No one said anything about expecting things in fact we waiting because we were saving for childcare while the other sibling went ahead and bullied them into caring for the kids since they could not afford childcare. That is not the point. The point is that I’m sad my kids won’t have as close a relationship with their grandparents because it does leads to inequality when you set a precedent like that. You are already more use to the kids and care for them more- the more you care for something the more you feel for that person. I know this because I was that grand child that was raised with my grandma and I’m absolutely closer to her than the other grandkids. I just think grandparents should be aware of this dynamic going forward and try make things equal if they can or be mindful of the impact.

Oh, now your story's changing. Before you said that you were mad because they weren't going to save you money on childcare. Now it's all about the emotional bond they won't have with their grandparents? In your original post you moaned about the "financial burden" and now it's allllll about grandma time?

You are SO out of line here. Any wedge driven here between your in-laws and your kids will be driven by you and your massive sense of entitlement, not by them. D

Listen to your husband, who seems a lot more reasonable and less spoiled than you are.

One last question -- do you expect them to stop looking after the other sibling's kids? Or are you insane enough to think that a newborn and two small kids are a reasonable burden to dump on two senior citizens? Or do you not care how it happens as long as you get to save that daycare $$?

NP. What seems fair, actually, is that the sibling benefiting from the free grandparent childcare pay some money toward the other sibling's childcare. Why should one sibling get free childcare and the other doesn't, just because they had kids first? That's really weird. Your response, PP above, is ridiculously aggressive. My guess is that you're a sibling that gets the free childcare, and you're scared to lose it.

NP, but this is crazy. Mom is not a shared financial resource. What you "fairness" PP's are missing is the element of grandparent choice involved. They aren't just ATMs that you can assume are broken if they give out more money to one customer than another. My mom provided free childcare to my sister for 7 years. They live near to each other and my sister is a single mom. She doesn't owe me money for daycare, FFS.

Of course, not. That’s not what I’m suggesting at all. However, if all other factors are equal (e.g. no single parent situation) decent, functional human beings work together to create an equitable situation.

I forgot to add, if a grandparent is providing free childcare...they are acting as a financial resource. Without this free service, the recipient of the service would bring paying for these services.

That doesn't make them a SHARED financial resource, owned by their kids (which is what "sibling should reimburse the ones who don't get childcare" means). It's the grandparent's own time to use as they see fit. If they spend it helping a specific kid out with childcare, it doesn't mean they owe all their other kids the same. It also doesn't mean that kid owes their siblings money. (That's legitimately the craziest thing in this crazy thread.) If adult human beings could just accept that they aren't owed anything by their parents in the first place, maybe they could stop tracking how much extra they believe their parents owe them now since they had the temerity to spend their time/money/effort on anything but you or your kids.

There are variations of this trope on pretty much half the threads in this family forum. Pretty much everyone agrees on one thing: grandparents don't owe their kids anything. Grandparents get to spend their money and time any way they see fit.

However, like I said in my earlier response, decent people make things fair when all the other variables are the same. If grandparents have made the choice to provide a free, and typically very expensive, service to one member of the family why would all parties involved not share this? Your very intense response tells me you have a personal stake in this issue. Are you mooching off your parents or inlaws?

DP

Because all these parties are not “involved.” It’s not anyone’s business but the grandparents. Thinking other adult children are “involved” means that those adults think they are entitled to their parents’ money/time/energy. Why do you think that?

How does it not become everyone’s business when everyone knows? People are all free to do what they want...including judge and infer. You can’t have it both ways.

Also, this is about gifting. If a grandparent gifts (time, money) something to one child or grandchild, they are certainly free to do so. But clearly, other similar parties will be hurt. Those parties are free to feel and respond however they want. It doesn’t matter if you want to infer this is entitlement or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what you mean- I have been pondering this myself. My in-laws watch one set of grandkids and we are pregnant with our first and they have not offered the same to us. Even watching the baby 1 day a week would save us so much money and it hurts that one set of grandkids gets this financial burden lifted off of them and have a loving grandparent to watch this part time. My husband doesn't think things necessarily have to be "fair" but it makes me want to try to be fair across all my future grandkids because it does breed resentment.

Holy crap. These senior citizens are looking after multiple small children and you want to stick a newborn with them too? Because it will save you money?

If you are resenting them then there is something seriously wrong with you. Grow up.

It obviously about fairness... if one set of grandkids gets tons of time with grandparents and the other set is not treated the same, how is that fair? How could that not breed resentment? It is their decision so whatever but for my own future grandkids I will try to be equal because even if it is their right- it does breed resent to have one set cared for while the other set is not care for at all.

NP here. JFC, get over yourself. You want free childcare from your in-laws because they already are watching other grandchildren who ARE ALREADY OUT OF THE WOMB?! Do these parents look like a daycare center? You lost, your husband’s sibling already had kids before you so the daycare is full. People who expect free childcare from grandparents shouldn’t be having kids. You sound ridiculous.

No one said anything about expecting things in fact we waiting because we were saving for childcare while the other sibling went ahead and bullied them into caring for the kids since they could not afford childcare. That is not the point. The point is that I’m sad my kids won’t have as close a relationship with their grandparents because it does leads to inequality when you set a precedent like that. You are already more use to the kids and care for them more- the more you care for something the more you feel for that person. I know this because I was that grand child that was raised with my grandma and I’m absolutely closer to her than the other grandkids. I just think grandparents should be aware of this dynamic going forward and try make things equal if they can or be mindful of the impact.

Oh, now your story's changing. Before you said that you were mad because they weren't going to save you money on childcare. Now it's all about the emotional bond they won't have with their grandparents? In your original post you moaned about the "financial burden" and now it's allllll about grandma time?

You are SO out of line here. Any wedge driven here between your in-laws and your kids will be driven by you and your massive sense of entitlement, not by them. D

Listen to your husband, who seems a lot more reasonable and less spoiled than you are.

One last question -- do you expect them to stop looking after the other sibling's kids? Or are you insane enough to think that a newborn and two small kids are a reasonable burden to dump on two senior citizens? Or do you not care how it happens as long as you get to save that daycare $$?

NP. What seems fair, actually, is that the sibling benefiting from the free grandparent childcare pay some money toward the other sibling's childcare. Why should one sibling get free childcare and the other doesn't, just because they had kids first? That's really weird. Your response, PP above, is ridiculously aggressive. My guess is that you're a sibling that gets the free childcare, and you're scared to lose it.

NP, but this is crazy. Mom is not a shared financial resource. What you "fairness" PP's are missing is the element of grandparent choice involved. They aren't just ATMs that you can assume are broken if they give out more money to one customer than another. My mom provided free childcare to my sister for 7 years. They live near to each other and my sister is a single mom. She doesn't owe me money for daycare, FFS.

Of course, not. That’s not what I’m suggesting at all. However, if all other factors are equal (e.g. no single parent situation) decent, functional human beings work together to create an equitable situation.

I forgot to add, if a grandparent is providing free childcare...they are acting as a financial resource. Without this free service, the recipient of the service would bring paying for these services.

That doesn't make them a SHARED financial resource, owned by their kids (which is what "sibling should reimburse the ones who don't get childcare" means). It's the grandparent's own time to use as they see fit. If they spend it helping a specific kid out with childcare, it doesn't mean they owe all their other kids the same. It also doesn't mean that kid owes their siblings money. (That's legitimately the craziest thing in this crazy thread.) If adult human beings could just accept that they aren't owed anything by their parents in the first place, maybe they could stop tracking how much extra they believe their parents owe them now since they had the temerity to spend their time/money/effort on anything but you or your kids.

There are variations of this trope on pretty much half the threads in this family forum. Pretty much everyone agrees on one thing: grandparents don't owe their kids anything. Grandparents get to spend their money and time any way they see fit.

However, like I said in my earlier response, decent people make things fair when all the other variables are the same. If grandparents have made the choice to provide a free, and typically very expensive, service to one member of the family why would all parties involved not share this? Your very intense response tells me you have a personal stake in this issue. Are you mooching off your parents or inlaws?

DP

Because all these parties are not “involved.” It’s not anyone’s business but the grandparents. Thinking other adult children are “involved” means that those adults think they are entitled to their parents’ money/time/energy. Why do you think that?

How does it not become everyone’s business when everyone knows? People are all free to do what they want...including judge and infer. You can’t have it both ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what you mean- I have been pondering this myself. My in-laws watch one set of grandkids and we are pregnant with our first and they have not offered the same to us. Even watching the baby 1 day a week would save us so much money and it hurts that one set of grandkids gets this financial burden lifted off of them and have a loving grandparent to watch this part time. My husband doesn't think things necessarily have to be "fair" but it makes me want to try to be fair across all my future grandkids because it does breed resentment.

Holy crap. These senior citizens are looking after multiple small children and you want to stick a newborn with them too? Because it will save you money?

If you are resenting them then there is something seriously wrong with you. Grow up.

It obviously about fairness... if one set of grandkids gets tons of time with grandparents and the other set is not treated the same, how is that fair? How could that not breed resentment? It is their decision so whatever but for my own future grandkids I will try to be equal because even if it is their right- it does breed resent to have one set cared for while the other set is not care for at all.

NP here. JFC, get over yourself. You want free childcare from your in-laws because they already are watching other grandchildren who ARE ALREADY OUT OF THE WOMB?! Do these parents look like a daycare center? You lost, your husband’s sibling already had kids before you so the daycare is full. People who expect free childcare from grandparents shouldn’t be having kids. You sound ridiculous.

No one said anything about expecting things in fact we waiting because we were saving for childcare while the other sibling went ahead and bullied them into caring for the kids since they could not afford childcare. That is not the point. The point is that I’m sad my kids won’t have as close a relationship with their grandparents because it does leads to inequality when you set a precedent like that. You are already more use to the kids and care for them more- the more you care for something the more you feel for that person. I know this because I was that grand child that was raised with my grandma and I’m absolutely closer to her than the other grandkids. I just think grandparents should be aware of this dynamic going forward and try make things equal if they can or be mindful of the impact.

Oh, now your story's changing. Before you said that you were mad because they weren't going to save you money on childcare. Now it's all about the emotional bond they won't have with their grandparents? In your original post you moaned about the "financial burden" and now it's allllll about grandma time?

You are SO out of line here. Any wedge driven here between your in-laws and your kids will be driven by you and your massive sense of entitlement, not by them. D

Listen to your husband, who seems a lot more reasonable and less spoiled than you are.

One last question -- do you expect them to stop looking after the other sibling's kids? Or are you insane enough to think that a newborn and two small kids are a reasonable burden to dump on two senior citizens? Or do you not care how it happens as long as you get to save that daycare $$?

NP. What seems fair, actually, is that the sibling benefiting from the free grandparent childcare pay some money toward the other sibling's childcare. Why should one sibling get free childcare and the other doesn't, just because they had kids first? That's really weird. Your response, PP above, is ridiculously aggressive. My guess is that you're a sibling that gets the free childcare, and you're scared to lose it.

NP, but this is crazy. Mom is not a shared financial resource. What you "fairness" PP's are missing is the element of grandparent choice involved. They aren't just ATMs that you can assume are broken if they give out more money to one customer than another. My mom provided free childcare to my sister for 7 years. They live near to each other and my sister is a single mom. She doesn't owe me money for daycare, FFS.

Of course, not. That’s not what I’m suggesting at all. However, if all other factors are equal (e.g. no single parent situation) decent, functional human beings work together to create an equitable situation.

I forgot to add, if a grandparent is providing free childcare...they are acting as a financial resource. Without this free service, the recipient of the service would bring paying for these services.

That doesn't make them a SHARED financial resource, owned by their kids (which is what "sibling should reimburse the ones who don't get childcare" means). It's the grandparent's own time to use as they see fit. If they spend it helping a specific kid out with childcare, it doesn't mean they owe all their other kids the same. It also doesn't mean that kid owes their siblings money. (That's legitimately the craziest thing in this crazy thread.) If adult human beings could just accept that they aren't owed anything by their parents in the first place, maybe they could stop tracking how much extra they believe their parents owe them now since they had the temerity to spend their time/money/effort on anything but you or your kids.

There are variations of this trope on pretty much half the threads in this family forum. Pretty much everyone agrees on one thing: grandparents don't owe their kids anything. Grandparents get to spend their money and time any way they see fit.

However, like I said in my earlier response, decent people make things fair when all the other variables are the same. If grandparents have made the choice to provide a free, and typically very expensive, service to one member of the family why would all parties involved not share this? Your very intense response tells me you have a personal stake in this issue. Are you mooching off your parents or inlaws?

DP

Because all these parties are not “involved.” It’s not anyone’s business but the grandparents. Thinking other adult children are “involved” means that those adults think they are entitled to their parents’ money/time/energy. Why do you think that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what you mean- I have been pondering this myself. My in-laws watch one set of grandkids and we are pregnant with our first and they have not offered the same to us. Even watching the baby 1 day a week would save us so much money and it hurts that one set of grandkids gets this financial burden lifted off of them and have a loving grandparent to watch this part time. My husband doesn't think things necessarily have to be "fair" but it makes me want to try to be fair across all my future grandkids because it does breed resentment.

Holy crap. These senior citizens are looking after multiple small children and you want to stick a newborn with them too? Because it will save you money?

If you are resenting them then there is something seriously wrong with you. Grow up.

It obviously about fairness... if one set of grandkids gets tons of time with grandparents and the other set is not treated the same, how is that fair? How could that not breed resentment? It is their decision so whatever but for my own future grandkids I will try to be equal because even if it is their right- it does breed resent to have one set cared for while the other set is not care for at all.

NP here. JFC, get over yourself. You want free childcare from your in-laws because they already are watching other grandchildren who ARE ALREADY OUT OF THE WOMB?! Do these parents look like a daycare center? You lost, your husband’s sibling already had kids before you so the daycare is full. People who expect free childcare from grandparents shouldn’t be having kids. You sound ridiculous.

No one said anything about expecting things in fact we waiting because we were saving for childcare while the other sibling went ahead and bullied them into caring for the kids since they could not afford childcare. That is not the point. The point is that I’m sad my kids won’t have as close a relationship with their grandparents because it does leads to inequality when you set a precedent like that. You are already more use to the kids and care for them more- the more you care for something the more you feel for that person. I know this because I was that grand child that was raised with my grandma and I’m absolutely closer to her than the other grandkids. I just think grandparents should be aware of this dynamic going forward and try make things equal if they can or be mindful of the impact.

Oh, now your story's changing. Before you said that you were mad because they weren't going to save you money on childcare. Now it's all about the emotional bond they won't have with their grandparents? In your original post you moaned about the "financial burden" and now it's allllll about grandma time?

You are SO out of line here. Any wedge driven here between your in-laws and your kids will be driven by you and your massive sense of entitlement, not by them. D

Listen to your husband, who seems a lot more reasonable and less spoiled than you are.

One last question -- do you expect them to stop looking after the other sibling's kids? Or are you insane enough to think that a newborn and two small kids are a reasonable burden to dump on two senior citizens? Or do you not care how it happens as long as you get to save that daycare $$?

NP. What seems fair, actually, is that the sibling benefiting from the free grandparent childcare pay some money toward the other sibling's childcare. Why should one sibling get free childcare and the other doesn't, just because they had kids first? That's really weird. Your response, PP above, is ridiculously aggressive. My guess is that you're a sibling that gets the free childcare, and you're scared to lose it.

NP, but this is crazy. Mom is not a shared financial resource. What you "fairness" PP's are missing is the element of grandparent choice involved. They aren't just ATMs that you can assume are broken if they give out more money to one customer than another. My mom provided free childcare to my sister for 7 years. They live near to each other and my sister is a single mom. She doesn't owe me money for daycare, FFS.

Of course, not. That’s not what I’m suggesting at all. However, if all other factors are equal (e.g. no single parent situation) decent, functional human beings work together to create an equitable situation.

I forgot to add, if a grandparent is providing free childcare...they are acting as a financial resource. Without this free service, the recipient of the service would bring paying for these services.

That doesn't make them a SHARED financial resource, owned by their kids (which is what "sibling should reimburse the ones who don't get childcare" means). It's the grandparent's own time to use as they see fit. If they spend it helping a specific kid out with childcare, it doesn't mean they owe all their other kids the same. It also doesn't mean that kid owes their siblings money. (That's legitimately the craziest thing in this crazy thread.) If adult human beings could just accept that they aren't owed anything by their parents in the first place, maybe they could stop tracking how much extra they believe their parents owe them now since they had the temerity to spend their time/money/effort on anything but you or your kids.

There are variations of this trope on pretty much half the threads in this family forum. Pretty much everyone agrees on one thing: grandparents don't owe their kids anything. Grandparents get to spend their money and time any way they see fit.

However, like I said in my earlier response, decent people make things fair when all the other variables are the same. If grandparents have made the choice to provide a free, and typically very expensive, service to one member of the family why would all parties involved not share this? Your very intense response tells me you have a personal stake in this issue. Are you mooching off your parents or inlaws?