I think that the parents of a chronically ill teen who doesn't drive have a degree of agency in the fact she's living with this guy that they wouldn't have if she had decided to move in with someone as a truly independent adult (in more than the bare legal sense), and as such they have a certain degree of responsibility to stay engaged with the situation. How is a guy good enough to take over the role of providing a home, but not good enough to come to a birthday party?

But a number of PPs suggested that she go ahead and exclude the boyfriend and if that causes a rift with the daughter, too bad. I think if there is any level of real concern about the boyfriend - or even if not at this age, because to me living with a boyfriend at 18 is a concern in itself - putting the daughter in an "us or him" situation is a bad idea.

My understanding is that she found the environment created by the other child's behavior intolerable given her own health condition, so it's not a real option.

The daughter should have another option for where to live whether he's a bad guy or not. No woman and certainly no eighteen year old girl should ever be in a living situation with a partner where it's her only option and at eighteen I still, unlike some, believe the family has a significant role in helping determine what her options will be. My daughter could be 45 and I wouldn't want to see her dependent on a man in that way. For a man to know that his partner has no other option can sometimes lead to an unhealthy power dynamic and cause a situation that started out superficially OK to turn bad. Besides, what is the long-term plan here? Where does the DD go when the relationship ends up the way most relationships among that age group end up? It does sometime happen that a young person ends up not living with the family for one reason or another but particularly having it be with a partner, at such a young age and in such a state of dependency given her illness, is bad news. That's even if he has a stellar personality and sterling character. But apparently he doesn't. It may not have previously occurred to Tap that this guy's problems have implications beyond the tenor of her own interactions with him, but now people have pointed it out to her.

There is one thing she can do, and that's to look at the question of him potentially being a nasty guy primarily in terms of her daughter's welfare rather than her own feelings. Help her come up with another place to live, if it can't be the family home. Barring that, at least talk to her about her concern about him in terms of the daughter's safety, do some education on the subject of red flags, and help make an emergency safety plan with the numbers of local women's resources etc. Accusing me of victim-blaming is a bit surreal in a thread full of insinuations about "where is the daughter in all this", talk of putting her up to confronting him, etc.

I don't think it takes an all-powerful deity to understand that the fact that her daughter is with a troubling guy is a bigger problem for the daughter than for anyone else.

I've read threads. I've also been the kid who "couldn't" stay at home because reasons, no one's fault really, just the way things are... and got a boatload of trouble as a result. As a result I weigh such reasons lightly, and there's very little chance that any amount of elaboration of reasons from the parents' point of view could ever change that. No amount of "good reasons" from the parents' point of view will magically make not being able to come home the best thing for the child. And yes I would "begrudge" (meaning say, hey there are bigger fish to fry right now) a party to someone who suspects their teen child is with an awful, abusive person and has nowhere else to go.

If there's anything at all to the suggestion that this is not a good guy, please don't put the DD in that position.

My questioning of priorities has to do with the picture being painted of what a mean, horrible, manipulative, abusive person, this guy is - it's even observed that the daughter's behavior is becoming more subdued around him, he really puts a chill on things... and the most pressing concern about the fact that the guy their daughter depends on for a place to live is acting this way is how it affects mom's birthday party.

OP is not "the woman whose situation is not normal." Her daughter is.

My understanding is that OP's DD is seriously ill and the other child's behaviors create an environment that aggravates her condition. It's hard to understand what the series of decisions might have been that would lead everyone to conclude that a dating partner and his parents were an ill teen's best option for where to stay, but in any case as of right now this boy is the roof over her head and I think if this DD is actually a priority at all, decisions about how to interact with him should weigh that factor heavily. It's simply too late to decide he's not good enough, unless alternatives are put in place. I don't think any woman should ever have to stay with a partner out of financial or logistical necessity, and that goes doubly for an eighteen year old girl. Whenever someone we know and care about - never mind one's own young daughter - is in such a situation, one should at the very least refrain from creating draconian "us or him" dilemmas or feeding into interpersonal drama with the problematic partner. And preferably, be proactive in helping the woman find alternatives. To not do this for a teen daughter boggles me and is coloring my perception of the backstory. Sorry, can't pretend this is normal.

It works out the same, though, no matter how good the reason why she can't provide an alternative to this guy supposedly is. If he's what's standing between OP's daughter and the street/couch-surfing/????, there's no point in being anything but endlessly gracious and accommodating to him. If he's not good enough that should have been considered earlier. At this point OP should be proactive in finding her DD a third option before trying to alienate the provider of the roof over her head.

Well I don't know what those issues are but if OP and family can't make providing an alternative to the problematic boyfriend a priority, I don't see how she gets to complain about him being problematic. But then I don't subscribe to the common view on this forum that 18 is a full-fledged adult to whom parents have zero obligations. Assuming he is about the same age all the talk about "this man" is a bit laughable. Becoming the new instant home for a girlfriend who has nowhere else to go would be a lot for even the nicest guy that age to take on and is bound to lead to some issues.

It's incredibly troubling that a teen with serious health problems may have to stay with a guy who's a problem because there's no place for her at home. Given that he's already the roof over her head, making her choose between him and you may seal the deal. What if she does see the light on him, what's she supposed to do then, start couch-surfing? I kind of can't believe you're worried about something like a birthday party while your daughter's young life is shaping up this way. I don't understand your decision not to have a place for your own child but I seriously hope you reconsider it. ETA I agree with Callie it's also possible that this is a good/normal guy whose view of you has been colored by the situation of having to take her in.

If 30 minutes is the most he can do then it is a stepping stone to developing the fitness to do more. I wouldn't overwhelm him by attempting extreme programs at the start.

Fruits and veggies get you more in terms of physical volume, but far less in terms of calories. I wouldn't scare-quote "hunger" when talking about people in such circumstances. Agree with PP that looking into food stamps is a very good idea.

Needing to count 10 seems developmentally normal for kindergarten.

Regentrude, that was specifically in response to "well, in ~other cultures~..." My family is actually from Europe but hypothetically, if something we were accustomed to was considered out of bounds at school growing up - like say there was a problem with kids being sent with coffee, and a rule was formulated in a way that also ruled out our tea - I really doubt we would have gotten all wrought up about it rather than just having it at home. Being all "but what about me, what about this, what about that, but *I* want to..." is consummately American. And I stand by what I said about plain water vs. flavored. If I'm drinking water and you're drinking diluted apple juice the fact that it's less sweet than regular apple juice is immaterial to the comparison. Being too particular for the basic substance on which our life as animals depends seems consumeristic in the extreme.

I was willing to give it a chance based on the exterior... as someone else said, the Ewok village structure. But I didn't really notice all those awful porthole windows until I saw them on the inside. All that glass, stone, and tile must be miserable in Indiana winters.

....so? What does that have to do with a school's reasonable desire to avoid the types of soda that are actually common in this country? Undermining the school's efforts in order to teach your children to affect European habits is snowflakey as all get out... I almost can't believe this is serious.

The dilemma seems to be that carbs = convenient and protein = effort. But eggs are quick. Bacon and sausage are not unless they are premade and then reheated, which I think only really works well for sausage. If you are going to give them carbs, why not opt for cereal rather than going to the trouble of pancakes? I really think of pancakes as a special weekend treat. You can quickly do a high protein breakfast with eggs and/or reheated sausages, and if you want to add carbs do a quick cereal hot or cold. I generally do scrambled eggs, then she has a carb item at public school breakfast. I keep saying I'm going to do the premade and reheated sausages thing, but never get around to it. Nothing could ever persuade me to do a big production breakfast on a morning when I expect to turn around and be productive. Because then you have the pots and pans hanging over your head for when you'll want to cook lunch or dinner.

Sugar is not the only reason to forbid carbonated beverages. But in reality, most of the sodas out there have much more sugar than something like Gatorade. Almost twice as much. (I can't believe people are trying to pontificate about sugar, but don't know this.) That's what they're trying to target, in the simplest possible way. I'm inclined to let people who are dealing with large groups of kids have easy to enforce blanket rules that don't hurt anybody.

I don't see how banning carbonation would increase sugar consumption. Reality is that at least 95% of the carbonated beverages people would bring if there wasn't that rule are the sugary type, and they're a good bit more sugary than most other sweet drinks. If you are opposed to sugar consumption period, you can have your child drink plain water. It's not like your only choices are a sugary non-carbonated drink or a sugar-free flavored seltzer water. Or if you do... what are the chances that a kid who's been raised to be able to refuse plain water in favor of flavored has such a healthy diet anyway? I enjoy an occasional soda but I don't think that people who routinely substitute a commercial product for ordinary drinking water are in any position to look down at the rest of us in terms of lifestyle. Besides, as previously stated there are reasons other than nutrition for not wanting soda in school.

I think it's reasonable for people who are caring for children for most of the day to have minimal restrictions like no soda. I think it would be really entitled to say, in effect, take my kid for seven hours every day but you don't get to have any standards for what goes on during that time. In addition to soda being really bad for kids there is the potential mess factor. Like PP said, rambunctious ten year old boys. In a communal situation not everything can be me, me, me. My special brand that doesn't have sugar. My precious angel who would never shake up a bottle or rub other kids' noses in the fact that he has a special brand that slipped through the rules. Etc. In a community situation you have to think about everybody, and yes, about the average. Half of this thread has been people mad that the school isn't strict *enough* about nutrition, according to *their* special dietary beliefs. There's no pleasing everybody. There has to be compromise and it's up to the people in charge to determine what that will be. Homeschooling is a valid choice but if you are specifically teaching your kids to avoid communal endeavors because they require compromise and following directions that aren't exactly how you think you would do it yourself, you are doing them a disservice.

That seems like a heck of a rabbit hole to send a teacher down, and a bit snowflakey to expect her to take the time to parse an exception for your kid like that. If they are forbidding carbonated beverages it's because the majority are extremely high in sugar. Next thing will be someone with some health food store brand that does have sugar, but less, or they'll want to claim it's ok because the sugar is from fruit juice and it becomes a matter of degree which the teacher is then on the spot to make a judgment about, leading to misunderstanding one way or the other (either the kid being refused an exception or other kids seeing an exception being made). Why not just follow the rule and save it for home? Why raise a kid with the expectation of being able to "well actually..." themselves out of the innocuous standards set in a group situation?