Oh, well, sure, my use of "no one" was hyperbolic, clearly. If that wasn't clear, I apologize for not using more precise language. Or if you are just being snarky, well, then, whatever. I suppose there are plenty of people in WV who are picky about their cars. But, I live in one of the most affluent counties in the state, and I probably know only a few people who care about any of their car's paint jobs -- and typically that'd just be the newest one in the family, since it hadn't gotten ruined just yet. All I can say is that unless you keep it garaged and never drive it, you are bound to be frustrated, sad, and angry a lot of the time because our roads are so bad that it's just not realistic to expect to keep them nice for long if you actually drive them. Maybe living here is why we've become so car-uncaring. Between having destructive teen drivers and the epically crappy roads, we'd just be frustrated and miserable 24/7 if we got concerned about scratches in the paint of our cars. If you actually live in WV and know people in Huntington, Charleston, etc who polish their cars every week and would also get worked up about dog nail scratches in the door, then you know a very different sort of WV'ian than I do. The WV'ians I know are nearly universally NOT litigious or looking for someone to pay for minor damages to their stuff. Fender benders are nearly always settled with a "don't worry about it" or a "sure, I'll call you with the cheapest estimate I can get, so you can avoid the police/insurance" . . . I know this very well, since my teens have had more than their share of minor accidents . . . No sweat, no police, and folks only want money if they really have to fix the banged up car, not for minor dents, scratches, etc. It just is rarely done around here IME. People help each other survive when they live in or among serious poverty. Part of that help is minimizing frivolous expenses. Y'all who live places where scratches in the paint of your cars can readily be avoided for years on end, please keep voting in legislatures who are willing to maintain your roads. Better yet, send some of them over to WV and see if y'all can get our state to maintain the roads. I know *I* keep trying to vote for people who are willing to spend the money to take care of our infrastructure . . . As it is, our neighbors throw down home-made patches and pot-hole fill on our STATE OWNED road every few months to avoid actually destroying/breaking cars on our road . . . Scratches are the very least of most folks' car concerns around here. I don't know anyone who "puts a shine on" their vehicle on any regular basis. I'm sure it happens. I wash mine a few times a year, right before road trips usually, and that seems the norm.

I just encourage you not to be totally negative. Your fears are reasonable, but the negativity might just add to the distress. Dh and I did this for my mom. It was heartbreaking, and difficult, but there was nothing else I'd rather have done. I could not have lived with myself and the alternatives (institutional care). I ran into a LOT of the "Don't!! It's terrible!! You'll ruin your marriage!! Your kids will hate you!!" etc etc. . . People are very fearful of dementia/Alzheimer's. Indeed, it is very hard. That said, I *never* experienced the aggression or violence that so many people said were predictable. Mom was crazy, confused, but still loving and appreciative. There was nothing more important than what we gave her. I am deeply satisfied with the fact that I could give her that gift. If she'd spent those last years unhappy in an institution, I'd be living with the guilt and sadness. Instead, I am gratified and I feel that I did all that I could for the woman who gave me life. Although the negative comments did not stop me, they did discourage me from seeking support/ideas and they did dishearten me and add to my stress. Don't be that person! My brother (single, childless) also had offered to be Mom's caretaker . . . We all preferred me, and so I did it . . . I did think though, that although my brother wasn't as prepared as I was for the 24/7 giving required in this sort of relationship, it may have actually been a huge blessing to him to experience that. . . (((hugs))) to your family as you navigate this pathway. I urge you to be as positive and constructive as possible. This is a hard, long journey, and you all need to support each other as much as you can.

FWIW, @creekland, I live in West Virginia. Living in Appalachia, you'd have to be under a rock not to understand poverty. If you open your eyes here, you see generations living in a depth of despair and poverty that most in the US simply cannot fathom. As I think I've said repeatedly, I didn't/don't think that paint scratches are a really big deal. For that and other reasons already enumerated, I didn't think the owner of the car should ask for compensation. I'd look at it like someone asking me to pay for a new shirt when my baby puked on it. It'd just be bizarre. Or if my goat chewed on their coat while they were petting it. Babies puke. (Many) dogs jump. Goats chew. The world is full of random things. No one can live in WV and drive on our roads if they are really picky about their vehicles. Our house is on a state road with more pot holes than roadway, some of which are large enough to break an axel if you don't dodge them properly. This road never gets plowed, so winter means sliding on ice or self-plowing with the front bumper. Really, no one from around here would get worked up about paint scratches. We re-attach stuff when it is falling off, lol. We stop and move the tree branch that falls across the road . . . if it's too big to drive over. But if we were worked up about keeping our cars perfect, we better move to somewhere else. I think you make a lot of good points. I agree with your general principle of being generous, being fair, and doing what is right. I just don't agree with your conclusions on this particular issue. Because, to me, the being generous thing includes giving grace to those whose minor failings cause us some small harms. I think that duty extends to all of us, even when it pinches a bit.

Nope, not OK at all. Our house is over half a mile from the bus stop, but it's a very quiet dead end road. I would NOT be OK with a kid walking on a road as you describe. Not at all. I'd make lots and lots of noise until it is resolved.

I think a fundamental difference between/among us about this topic is that I just don't see it as "bowing down" to either accept (live with/accommodate) OR decline (quit) the conditions of your employment OR to attempt to negotiate them, while realizing that asking for accommodation (or compensation) may result in your employer making the decision to decline your continued employment. This is NOT, IMHO, an issue limited to low-paid/low-status workers. I think this is a universal issue. And I don't see any shame or bowing down in making the choice to suck up something you don't like. It's a choice; we make them routinely . . . in jobs, in relationships, in schools, in our community on the forums, etc. Dh and I were employees for decades before we were employers. We constantly assessed jobs/conditions of jobs when deciding whether to continue employment, end employment, or seek change from the employer. Some issues were sucked up (lots of issues), some were negotiated, sometimes we left a position for a better fit elsewhere. That's what employment is about. Dh never liked the "split shifts" that made him have 4 empty hours in the middle of the day -- a 40 minute and $4/toll ride from home, but he sucked them up. Dh never liked weekend call, but he sucked it up. I didn't like making the coffee for my boss (i didn't even drink coffee and hate the smell of it), but I sucked it up. There are lots of things we suck up at work and in life. There are plenty of things as an employer that one sucks up, both from clients and from staff and from governing agencies. From being on the other side of the employer/ee line, I have come to realize that the same goes for the employer. Sometimes we end a relationship, sometimes we suck it up, sometimes we try to change the relationship. Same three options. I had a 7+ year housekeeper who used WAY too much lysol in the mop bucket. She'd use like a quart of lysol to a 2 gallon bucket. And she mopped that way twice a week. My house smelled like a chemical plant. I tried once or twice to suggest using less. Eventually, I took to watering down the concentrate. Same housekeeper routinely didn't check pockets for electronics, so we lost many phones and iPods to the wash. She was an hourly employee, and she *intended* to check pockets, but often missed things. I sucked it up. I reminded my kids to check pockets, and I just accepted that any damages were on me (despite her protestations and offering of payment). We also taught the kids (including the toddler) that anything they left on the floor might disappear into the housekeeper's vacuum. We often joked that we had to head count the kids to make sure none were in the vacuum. I would have liked her to pick up the floor first instead of just sucking all the legos, etc, into the vacuum. BUT, the tradeoff was worth it to me. I sucked it up. I had an elder-care/housekeeper aide who was wonderful in every way except that she spent about 30% of her paid hours (regular 6-8 hour shifts) playing on her phone or resting or taking other long rest breaks. I'd never had a staff member do this, but I couldn't think of a way to get her to actually work most of the time without being harsh, so I just decided that it was worth it to me to have her be great in general, with this one substantial flaw. (And she was paid 14/hr with benefits and paid leave, which as approximately 40% more pay and better benefits than she'd ever gotten before or gets now, and I made her schedule to suit HER preferences.) Other times, I've had staff who couldn't reliably show up when scheduled. After (many) repeated problems and discussions, I let them go because the disruption of the unpredictability was just too unpleasant to make it worth the trouble. In the issue of the dogs-cause-problems-for-employee, I was simply suggesting that if the employer is discomfited by the request, they may terminate the relationship, so that is a risk that is worth considering.

The OP indicated that the dog was a repeated concern. She didn't need to be told the dog was a problem because she already noted the dog was a problem. I personally don't have pets that would damage a vehicle or anything else. I'm not twisting anything. I'm stating that as an employer, I employ people to make my life easier, and so I wouldn't want an employee who needed me to change my habits. It's not the employee's fault that their car is damaged by the owner's pet. It's just not a good match. I would choose not to have someone come to my home who had requirements of that employment that were not compatible with my lifestyle/household. My original reply was intended to convey that there is a risk of being let go if you rock the boat. I am confident that I am not unusual in this regard, and I do not agree that it is unreasonable for an employer to choose to retain the services of staff who make their life easier and do not represent an elevated risk of financial claims and/or other liability claims. As an employer, I do have lots of responsibilities. Many more at my business than at my home. If this were a thing happening at a commercial business, I would definitely want to make sure it didn't happen and would take responsibility for ensuring it did not (and covering expenses for damage). At work, not only do we carry workers' comp insurance (as is legally required), we carry plenty of additional policies and we *require* staff to seek medical care (and utilize workers' comp) if/when they are injured on the job. And pay for their time. And offer additional paid time off to handle needed care. That is the right thing to do. As a private person hiring in home help, one generally does NOT have worker's comp. Labor law and insurance requirements are very different for household employees than from typical employers/ees. At my *home*, I don't want to employ anyone who can't cheerfully manage all the craziness that comes with my home. At our workplace, we likewise select employees who are a good match for our workplace. Working in a dangerous profession with many unpredictable hazards when you are handling thousands of stressed animals a year, occasional injuries are part of the job. As a business, we have a duty to make the workplace as safe as feasible and to carry appropriate insurance to cover these occasional injuries. At my home, insurance coverage is much more minimal, and there are not the typical work-place-safety regulations in place. Gladly, I don't have a duty to MSDS label every cleaner in my house, etc. Similarly, OSHA, DoL, etc, are not a typical concern for household employer/ees.

I think fixing paint scratches in a car is frivolous, and if someone asked me to fix scratches, it'd annoy me. And make me suspect their motives and trustworthiness. And, yes, I guess it is my social world view that it is polite to offer to pay for anything possible, but annoying if someone takes you up on it if it is frivolous. Maybe that is some weird social norm in my circle. But, in my circle, no one would take you up on paying for something like this unless it was catastrophic. We go with the "life happens" . . . I'm storing several pieces of power equipment (snow blower, generator, etc) for a friend. They eagerly agreed that we could use them as desired while we are storing them. I volunteered that, of course, if they died/damaged/etc while we had them, we'd fix them or replace them. The owners insisted "NO! Those things happen . . ." Of course, if one really does get damaged or die while we are using it, we will replace/repair it before the reclaim it, despite those protestations. Maybe this is just a really weird unwritten set of social rules in my friend/family circle. I could totally imagine that. A truly damaged car or a broken window must be fixed. Fixing that is not frivolous. I would insist on paying for the damages on those sorts of things if they happened. Hasn't happened to us, but that's what I'd do. I can't believe that all these posters actually pay people to fix minor scratches in their car's paint. We've never done that. Ever. We fix safety issues. We fix major damages. We don't fix minor cosmetic flaws in our cars. It's just not our thing. Maybe the rest of the world is much pickier about their car's appearance than we are. I suppose that if in your world view, whenever you get scratches in your car's paint, you run out and pay a body shop to repair it, then it is more conceivable that you'd want the repairs paid for. In that case, I will go along with the considering it like a broken window, etc., with expecting the at fault party to pay for damages. But, if one is like me, and generally ignores (or at most, uses a $5 pen from AutoZone to cover scratches to protect from rust), then, yes, I think it is greedy and petty to ask someone else to pay for damage the one time that someone is at "fault" instead of it being the 95% of other times when you just come back to your car and it's scratched in a parking lot or you get too close to the bushes, etc. That's petty. IMHO.

I would not fire them for daring to ask. I'd fire them because having them on staff would create stress (the logistics of confining my dogs) for me, and I pay people to reduce my stress, not add to it.

LOL, nice come back. I would not willfully or (knowingly) negligently damage any one's property. In this particular example, I would solve the problem by not having the person with likely-damaged property on my own property, right after paying for the damages.

Sure, but then again, I think that cosmetic scratches in my car's paint from a dog are both to be expected in general life and also not critical to fix. We get scratches in our cars' paint regularly, either from careless parking too near the bushes, or even from minor accidents. I don't think we've ever fixed a paint scratch in my many hundreds of thousands of miles of car ownership. It's not a critical thing. Scratches happen regularly, and, to me, it's a waste of money fixing them. I live in a rural area on a terrible road, with bad winters, lots of rough roads. If the car was truly damaged, then that'd be different. But, to me, the scratches that a dog's claws can do to a car are not something that needs to be fixed. Those sorts of scratches happen on our vehicles probably on average every 10,000 miles of driving. Fixing them would be a waste of money, IMHO. SO, to me, asking for payment for fixing them is just silly and petty and greedy since I think it's a waste to fix scratches. I just see those sorts of minor things as "life happens" and I don't look for others to pay for it. That's me.

Yes, I agree that it's good to take responsibility for our accidents. I do. Every time. When my kids (!!!!) hit someone's car, I'm eager and ready to pay the bill. When my kids break something, we replace it. I offer. I pay. I know I've already said that I would pay for the damages if asked or if I saw them occur. But, I would not ask or expect for someone to pay for damages on MY car. I think it's petty. And greedy. Just not nice. I wouldn't do it. I'd think poorly of someone who did. The only times I've sought compensation from someone for things have been major car accidents and then that time when some medical staff killed my dad. All the other lumps, bumps, screwups, accidents, etc that we've encountered over the years we've just handled ourselves. Life happens. It's messy. I just don't think it is a good way to live to focus on who should pay for these sorts of things. If it happens to my stuff, I pay for it. If something happens to someone else's stuff and it's my fault through recklessness, then I'd want to pay for the damage. So far as I recall, this has only been for car accidents in which I (or my kid) was at fault. I choose not to associate with people who are looking to find fault and find someone to pay for random stuff. It's just annoying and, IMHO, in poor character. Not classy. Whatever, I just don't like it.

I guess the difference is that you are looking at the crazy dogs as the boss's oversight/misbehavior. I'm looking at it as "this family has crazy dogs and likes it that way and has made it obvious since the OP has previously encountered this similar problem." *I* wouldn't want to have dogs that damaged cars, because i like my cars undamaged and I wouldn't want my friends (or employees) to have their vehicles damaged, either. But, I am not the boss in the OP's post. Sounds to me like the boss is fine with the crazy dogs. So, that means the boss might be a little crazy. That's fine. You can work for crazy, or you can work around crazy, but trying to change crazy, let alone trying to change crazy in your employer, is even more crazy than the boss who is fine with her dogs habitually damaging vehicles. So, to me, that means the OP should choose to quit or adjust her own travel/parking plans. I just do not think it's reasonable to expect your employer to change their lifestyle/habits/family/whatever to adapt to your needs. I'd assume that the boss is just fine with her crazy dogs. So, that'd leave me with the choice to deal with it or quit.

All I knew from the OP was a general concept of her going to the person's house to work. My personal experience has included having household employees here 7 days a week, for up to 24 hours a day, multiple shifts, multiple staff. (Caring for end stage Alzheimer's at home is a staff intensive endeavor.) So, in MY experience, just locking up my dogs wouldn't have worked. From the OP, I have no idea if the home owner/employer has staff coming 7 days a week or this is a once a month thing or what. None of us (other than maybe OP) knows how frequently that employer has employees at their home. Let me tell you, when you have employees in your home nearly 24/7, just their presence is incredibly stressful, let alone whatever the terrible reason is that you have employees. When I had staff around that much, I was nearly panicked with just the stress of having all these semi-strangers in my space. Not a happy thing for an introvert. When Mom died, and I no longer required lots of help, I was THRILLED to no longer have cleaning help, as I would MUCH rather clean this huge house by myself than have someone around even weekly, as I hated it. Maybe folks think "household help" and think we're Hiltons or Trumps, but, no, we're regular people who just happened to spend most of our inheritance giving my mom a dignified end of life in our home. So, nope, I would not have anyone hired in my house that needed me to do anything different from my normal routine. If MY routine didn't work for the person, then they shouldn't take the job. Period. (At our work place, we are more adaptable, because we can LEAVE work at the end of the day, but at home, nope, it is totally my way or the highway for anyone I hire. This is my refuge, and I'm not paying someone to make hassles for me. I'm paying them to reduce my hassles. )

Well, at my house, we have cars in the driveway and dogs in the back yard or house. If I lived on property where the dogs roamed to the driving area, yep, I wouldn't want someone coming there if the normal-for-my-dogs behavior would harm their car. I'm not sure what's so difficult about this issue. An employment agreement requires that it work well for both the employer and the employee. Otherwise, the boss fires or the employee quits. And, yes, if I had animals that roamed, then that'd be part of the job. My mom once drove a rental car to visit old, dear friends who lived off-the-grid on lots of lots acreage in CO. While she was in the house visiting, their horses CHEWED on her rental car, causing lots of damage. Mom drove off, cheerfully, and either her insurance or her pocket paid for the damages to the rental car. I am 100% certain it never occurred to her to ask her old friends to pay for the damage. It never occurred to me, either. Not once in the dozens of times the funny story came up over the years, did anyone think of that . . . I guess my circles just don't run that way. It was a funny story, not one to get worked up about. Animals are nuts. Things happen. I guess many folks are just much more comfortable expecting others to pay for random acts of damage to their stuff. I'd just say that I'd rather not have friends (or employees) like that. I avoid it. I wouldn't hire or befriend someone I knew was greedy/litigious in that way. And if I discovered they were, I'd protect myself by avoiding further interaction (by firing or unfriending them). And, yes, we have insurance to cover these things, but, one or two claims can lose you your policy or double your rates . . . I have insurance to protect ME against crazy things and to protect my finances from devastation from some unpredictable unfortunate event . . . And one of the more avoidable unfortunate events is having a person on your property who is looking to make a buck off a random accident/incident.

You want Comfortis or Trifexis. Period. They're the BOMB for fleas. Immediate action, too. And no problem with washing off.

I do generally look at dogs and kids and old ladies as Acts of God, lol.

I would probably not want to see those friends much given how inconsiderate they are.

Probably correct. I am an employer at a vet hospital, where staff all get hurt periodically as part of the trade (and we have insurance to cover their injuries and take all possible precautions to prevent). And then I've hired people to come to my house as household staff. And my house is loud, messy, full of animals, etc. If you can't handle the craziness of pets, then don't come here, lol. Would the folks who'd ask for compensation for the dog damage also ask for compensation if a sap-filled tree oozed and dripped and wrecked your paint job (that happened to my mom once in her own driveway)? Personally, I would not. I would never ask for someone to cover any sort of "random" sort of damage like that unless there was such catastrophic damage that injured/killed or totaled a vehicle and that could not be reasonably covered on my own insurance or out of my own pocket. I'm just not a litigious person, and I don't like the USA norm of so readily looking to cash in on random stuff that could have just as well happened to you at a park, your own house, your mom's house, wherever. Would you try to sue to park department if a loose dog scratched your car at the ball field? Ugh, not me. Stuff happens. Deal with it and move on is my general principle.

LOL, *my* dogs don't damage anyone's cars. They are loud, but not destructive. Household staff have always known about our loud, obnoxious, hairy pets. My dogs aren't allowed in the front where the driveway is. If I lived on lots of acreage and had loose dogs, though, then dealing with them would be part of any household job. I've never had to fire anyone because of this particular type of situation. I was just stating a general principle, and I have, for sure, fired plenty of people for creating drama (generally with other employees, not with myself). There are lots of little things that go into the "making life easier for the boss" thing . . . getting along with other staff, being cheerful, resourceful, reliable, flexible . . . Those sorts of "soft skills" are nearly impossible to train. We've learned to hire for those skills and train the technical skills. Works for us.

It's not the fault of the employee. It's simply that if I hired someone to come to my house, with all my crazy animals, then they'd need to be comfortable with the animals and not bring things on the property that would be damaged. I have quite a few employees that have been working for us very happily for many years. 10+ years in several cases. We *very* rarely have folks leave for avoidable reasons. I have employees who come back years later (one returning next week) from far away or from time off to have babies or whatever . . . In fact, that returning employee who comes back next week has worked in the vet industry for 10-15 years, for many employers. She worked for us for 3-4 years, then went away out of state for her dh's job, and is now returning after 3 years out of state. We gleefully agreed to rehire her . . . and when I commented that hopefully she'd have some new tricks of the trade/skills/ideas to bring back to us (from her last 3 years at another practice), she replied that the only thing she was bringing back was a deep appreciation for how fantastic we are as employers and what a great team we have. I have several other former employees (out of state now) who lament frequently that they can't still work for us because of the positive work environment we have. We are incredibly responsive and flexible and kind to our staff. We appreciate them. We respect them. They respect us. I've also had many household hires mostly due to having to hire extensive in home help to assist with my mother when she had Alzheimer's. I've never had a problem with any of them not being happy as our employee. We've never damaged their stuff. When they broke our stuff and would be incredibly fearful and apologetic (due to, presumably, a long history of similar situations when employers were mean) and offering to pay for the new phone or whatever, we, without fail, said "no worries, it happens, no sweat!" We voluntarily paid THREE MONTHS severance to my mom's private duty aide when mom died, so she could take her time in finding just the right position. We had zero obligation to do that. We did it because it was the right thing to do. We are not assholes; we are, however, adults who take responsibility for our own stuff and don't go looking to cash in on any opportunity to get a few bucks from someone. I was giving my perspective as an employer (which I've gotten trashed for in other threads, whatever) because I think it's helpful to employees to understand the boss's perspective for their best interest. I've been an employee plenty of times. Worked FT summers from age 14. . . . I teach my kids what I learned as an employee and what I know to be true as an employer . . . Your #1 job is to make your boss's life easier. Unless it is unethical, immoral, etc, you do whatever you need to do to make their life easier. In fact, at our vet hospital, we teach our staff that our employers are actually our clients, so we all do whatever we can to make our clients' lives easier. In life, lots of people get fired. It happens. IMHO, lots of the time, it's because folks don't get that concept of making life easier for the boss. Lots of people can assemble widgets. Fewer can do so while not whining about petty things or causing drama. Fewer still can assemble the widgets, be drama free, and cheerfully fix the broken handle on the cabinet or wipe down the client bathroom, etc as needed. Being willing to do whatever is (reasonably) needed to make your boss's life easier is a very valuable trait. To me, making the boss's life easier would be the employee with the car with a really nice paint job choosing to park somewhere off the property instead of where the dogs are. (Or some other alternative transportation that doesn't require asking the boss to do something.) As far as me firing an in home employee who asked for payment for minor, predictable damage that was caused by my dog . . . I've got 3 kids. I've got 3 dogs. Before Mom died, I used to have a flock of aides and my mom with dementia wandering around. And construction workers. If I hired someone to come clean the house . . . I most likely wouldn't be home when they were here. It is a major PITA to keep a dog locked up in a manner that you aren't used to, because any random kid, spouse, grandma, grandma's aide, the mail man, whoever, might un-do whatever effort I put into locking the dog up. Heck, we have a fully fenced yard, and still have issues with a kid leaving the gate open, etc. So, no, if my dogs were a problem for you, I wouldn't want you working at my house. I've got enough crap to keep track of, and I don't need more trouble. When we hired in home help over the years, everyone knew about the dogs, cats, etc. If they weren't comfortable, then they didn't take the job. Dealing with my pets and my kids and my crazy mom and my messes were part of the job. No one made them take the job. If they don't want the job, no problem.

Well, if I were the dog owner, I'd willingly cover your costs for repair. BUT, if you worked for me, then I would either fire you or require that you not drive onto my property for future tasks/jobs. When I hire people to work for me, I expect them to make my life easier, and remembering to keep my dog penned up (assuming I didn't already do so) would be a PITA, and so I'd find someone easier to handle. I'd also be irritated at the request for coverage of what *I* consider very minor and "shit happens" sort of thing. I'd think it was petty and I'd be wary of future more serious liabilities of having someone on my property who appeared to be looking for a way to cash in. So, my advice is that if you like the job and want to continue, to park elsewhere and walk to her home . . . or take a bus . . . or get a ride . . . or else be willing to eat the costs of the repairs (or just live with the scratches). I would NOT say anything about it or her dog in the future -- because, IME as an employer, making your boss's life more difficult is an express pass to being let go. So, I'd either quit or I'd take the job for what it is -- and that includes a dog that may scratch up your car. If you want to quit anyway, then I guess there is no harm is asking for her to pay for the damages. If you want to do that, then go get an estimate, and politely hand it to her next time you come to work. She should cheerfully pay for it . . . I would if that happened to me . . . But, then I'd fire you. :( If it were me and my car, I'd never ask someone to cover damage from something as commonplace as a dog jumping on the car a bit. If they smashed into my car causing $$$$ of damage with a tractor or something, then, of course, I'd need it fixed. But, scratches . . . meh . . . they happen. On a new car, it'd make me sad. But, eventually all cars get scratches, so I'd let it slide.

Exactly! Count me as another judgmental atheist. You can have strong morals and strong opinions on right and wrong without attributing those morals to a deity. I think you nailed it when you realized that maybe you overlooked a major moral problem in your quest to be non-judgy. Your heart is in the right place . . . but it's making a mess for you. Hornblower nails the difference . . . This cheating is doing *major* harm to innocents. It's not a lifestyle choice or a personal moral thing . . . It's doing serious harm to other human beings. It's wrong. It's OK for you to express that, and to handle it however you feel is right from here on out. Just because you, in error, went along (somewhat) with her bad behavior in the past does NOT mean you have to keep doing so. Say it's wrong. Say you can't support it. Say it makes your stomach and heart hurt to be in the middle of this. Remove yourself from this aspect of her life. You can keep being friends without discussing her affair. If you have nothing else to talk about, then maybe you've been enjoying the seedy aspect of her drama a bit too much. If that's the case, find some really trashy Netflix series to watch to get your bad-behavior-thrills. (That's not a judgy thing . . . I enjoy trashy behavior on TV as much as anyone . . . I just try to avoid it IRL. On TV, the collateral damage is imaginary . . . IRL, it's real living little kids and spouses . . .)

The paperwhites are amazing. I love, love, love mine. They are great in the dark, the light, whatever.

Since she's already suspicious, I'd suggest hiring a private investigator to follow/check up on her husband during those days (providing him the info from the text and the makes/models of his car and the "friendly" neighbor's car. And their full names. And let the PI figure it out. It'd be way worth the $$$ to me to either put my fears to rest or get proof of the SOB cheating. That proof will be worth $$$ in divorce court, and that'd be where I'd be heading if my dh cheated, unless I killed him first. If I wasn't suspicious, I would handle it differently. I'd probably just ask WTF is this text about? And then, hopefully, I'd get a good explanation. I'm sure my antennae would be on alert from the on out. If I were suspicious but couldn't afford the PI, I'd probably grab dh's phone and stick it in my pocket/purse for an hour (to prevent him from receiving texts from the woman -- ideally I'd do this sometime when dh was totally unavailable, like out for a run with no phone or mowing the lawn on the noisy mower, etc) and then go stop by the woman's house sometime very soon and ask her what the text was about. Then I'd go home, ask dh the same question, and see if the answers matched and made sense. I'd also (secretly) set up a key logger and tracking app on dh's phone(s). You could do all that for maybe 100-200. I'd do all my googling/etc about this topic on "private browsing" to avoid alerting my spouse of my suspicions.

I'm no expert, but we do have a couple rental properties with tenants, so I guess I am a landlord, lol. Here is a forum that I've found to be a great resource. Lots of links, lists, etc, and tons of info. https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52-rental-property-questions-landlording-issues Hope that helps. Good luck!