It seems like you are used to some fairly specific vocabulary. In my experience, local to me, a "seniors home" can mean almost anything -- from fully capable people living in building limited to 65+ -- to full time nursing for completely incapacitated folks. Many "seniors homes" offer a variety of levels and types of care, including various forms of locked floors/wings etc. for those with dementia. So, I don't really know what your local seniors home offers. They might or might not offer some types of locked memory care for folks who need it. However, if they do, there was clearly a failure of whatever systems they have in place. (Which does happen from time to time even in the best facilities. And it sounds like these operators are just getting started so a failure or two, resulting in elopement, might be expected.) Anyhow, regardless of the institutions and their definitions -- this one lady matters, and she was in danger. Hopefully both the family and the facility will either step up their game or find her a better placement.

I know you well enough to know: if you think someone is crazy -- you are probably right!

I realize the conversation has moved on, but I wanted to clarify a few things that I might have miscommunicated about triangulation. 1) By calling something 'triangulation' I did not mean to imply that triangulation is 'always bad' or that people should never do it. Triangulation, itself, is not evil. It is frequently compassionate and occasionally helpful. I think by insisting that Scarlet's DH is absolutely involved in a textbook triangulation situation (which is true) I accidentally implied that I was thinking that therefore he should stop that. That's not what I think. 2) What I think is that people can be involved in triangulation if they want to be -- but when they are, they should be ( a ) aware that they are in a triangle, ( b ) observant of the triangular dynamics in play, ( c ) self aware of their own level of stress and suffering, and ( d ) strategic to avoid the known common pitfalls of triangulation situations. It's like going ziplining: You can sign up to go ziplining if you want to, but you should be aware of the risks and take the relevant precautions. You should not be out there ziplining if your don't know that you are ziplining and haven't thought it through. Other people should not sign you up to go ziplining without your knowledge and consent. Ziplining is a clearly defined activity -- a person should know whether or not they are on a zipline. 3) Acting directly on your own opinions towards a person you believe is being abused or at risk is not triangulation. They are your thoughts (that originate with you) communicated to a person you are in direct relationship with. That's a line, not a triangle. It's triangulation if you are acting on behalf of Person A, but you are acting towards Person B. You have relationships with both A and B, and A wants something from/for B, so you become some kind of go-between, agent, or amplifier for A's perspective. So if Scarlett's DH feels strongly that his mom is in danger, and is telling her so -- that's linear, not triangulation. If Scarlett's DH mostly just feels that his mom should be listening to his sister -- because his sister is unhappy and wants his mom to take action, and he agrees with his sister that that would be a good idea: that's what makes it a triangle. When he relays his sister's views to his mom, or vice-versa. 4) If Scarlett's DH is being invited to advise his mom, and his advice is welcome, and is advising her of his own thoughts and feelings (nothing to do with his sister) that's neither triangulation nor interference. However, if his advice is unwelcome then he has to ask himself if he believes she is in danger. (I know some of us think there is danger, but we don't know if Scarlett's DH thinks there is danger.) If there is danger he can insert his advice rather forcefully, without it being asked for or welcome -- without it being called interference. The danger makes it an exception to the rule that it's not usually appropriate to press forceful opinions on family members who don't want to hear them.

It's okay to be in favour of triangulation. It's very kind hearted of you (and him) to want to help. (I'm also very glad that nobody actually was harsh, and that the family tends towards kindness and respect.) The thing is, with triangulation, it often happens that the person that gets triangulated-in (your DH in this case) suffers the most. Usually they suffer the most while having the least power. It's usually the most difficult role to play, and it often (not always) has no payoff whatsoever. (Sometimes it does help, but usually it just contributes to the same outcome that would have happened anyways, just through a more dramatic process.) So if your DH is willing to do this, it's good if both of you know what the dynamic is. Triangulation happens when the people directly involved with a situation are suffering and/or feel stuck. It's a way of attempting to transfer some suffering and/or responsibility away from themselves by putting it onto someone else's shoulders. That can sometimes be okay. Family can be the kind of people who bear one another's burdens. It's also sometimes not okay -- because often their suffering doesn't decrease, but a new person begins to suffer too. And often the responsibility doesn't transfer (because sometimes it can't) but feelings of responsibility get spread around and germinate into spaces for blame and blame-shifting. And then there's the exponential increase in the complexity of the situation as additional people become involved, one by one, each additional person adding new dynamics and greater potential for drama and conflict. All that is why professionals usually advise against triangulation, or that people be careful (boundaried, respectful, self-protective, thoughtful, strategic) when they are in a triangular situation. Your DH becoming elevated/emotional is an example of the 'adding complexity' dynamic of triangulation being in play in your situation. If he is going to be in a triangle, a deep breath and a pause for thought is going to be a useful tool for him. If he's not usually one to speak out impulsively like that, that's good. He should try to stay true to what's normal for him, and not get drawn into the high-emotional temperature that this situation is generating. His mom has a right to be conflict-avoidant, patient, pacific, and people-pleasing if those are her flaws. If at all possible she should be being upheld (by him) in a position of respect, and respect for her agency and her 'vote' even if/when her instincts aren't matching his idea of a strong rational response.

If your husband is concerned for his mother's safety, then it's not a triangle for him to harshly pressure her to take steps to protect herself. If your husband has his own opinion about the situation, but his opinion concerns thing *other* than the safety of vulnerable persons, then his advice should only be rendered when it is welcome, or if his mother is not in full command of ordinary cognitive abilities. Otherwise it's interfering even if he is mild, and harshly interfering if he is harsh. If your husband is voicing his sister's opinion, on behalf of his sister, because he agrees with his sister over-and-above agreeing with his mother: that's classic triangulation. That's how triangulation is defined. Triangulation happens often in families and is often helpfully meant. It is often done for the goal of coming to a family resolution. Being part of a family does not make people immune from triangulation. It's actually the situation where triangulation happens most often. When 'a young man won't obey the women in charge' and they choose to call in a man to amplify their voice -- that's 100% textbook triangulation.

Sorry, double post.

Your husband's safety is at risk? Then you are right, it's not a triangle. I must really not understand the situation. Sorry for jumping in without all the info.

I'm confused why your DH is in this triangle at all, much less being harsh with his mother. Surely if his sister is having strong opinions, she doesn't need to triangle in her brother to amplify her voice? Am I misunderstanding something? What is your DH's role or investment in the situation? Is it just that he wants his sister's life to be a generally pleasant, and he's trying to support her in accomplishing that? Or does he feel that his mom is at risk in some way?

If this is really on your agenda, you should consider cruises. Many more eclipses cover the sea than the land, and there's no rush/crowd for accommodations nearby. There's also a greater chance of good weather, since a ship can 'chase' an opening in any cloud cover (to some extent). There may even be eclipses that don't get onto lists (because they don't pass over any land) that might be very personal experiences for people onboard a ship.

1) I'm sorry for your loss. 2) Your obituary idea is lovely. 3) Your intended reply to your sister, is raw, harsh, combative, inappropriate, and unnecessary. I know that you are hurting and that's why you had those feelings and wanted to write it like that. But I think you will regret it. It's likely to cause a family rift that will last for years. Please don't send it. 4) Send something like, "I'm sorry you feel that way." 5) Carry on honoring your dad in your way -- you don't need her permission, and it doesn't need to be talked out.

To me, I think 2 or 3 are both fine. But a little bit does depend on the factor of whether this is "a group of friends that has a past in common" (which makes it more okay to choose to only invite the folks you find pleasant) or whether this get-together is still associated closely with an "everyone should be made welcome" type of community organization, such as a church group. If it is still associated with a churchy or other everyone-welcome type of organization (ie, it's held at the church building, etc.) it's harder to justify inviting only your friends from within that grouping. If it's been a long time, and it's at a person's home, or otherwise has some distance -- it's easier to see it as a group of friends instead of something that is inappropriately exclusive. I've personally experienced (more than once) churchy groups that 'dissolve' and then I find out later that everyone who used to be in 'that group' is now in a 'new group' except me. That kind of coordinated secret/tactful exclusion is hurtful when it's not supposed to work like that. It's supposed to be that anyone can come to a Bible Study if they want to. (And I don't know why it keeps happening, but that's not the point here. I don't think it's politics or hygiene in my case!) On the other hand, everyone has friends. Years later I don't find it surprising if a few of a group crew that I have drifted away from are still close and hang out once in a while. That's not nearly as hurtful.

1. Fancy cheese. 2. High-end berries and other not-in-season-but-still-good fruits. 3. Really good steak and/or roast beef. (4. Thick cut bacon.)

I used this idea to make theme snacks for my family to enjoy our partial eclipse. Thanks for the idea!

From Anastasia "This can only end in tears." (Bartok, a Russian bat, in a Russian accent) From Willow "Wiiiiilow, you iiiidiot!" (A magician turned into a goat, reprimanding their student, with expressive bleating)

That's so interesting. US regulations (or lack thereof) are a bit intuitively different from what I'm used to as a Canadian. They seem to be just a touch more pro-business as core decision makers, and less whole-society / government as core decision makers. I checked my province, and you can't be denied the basic mandatory auto insurance (if you are not seeking it fraudulently etc.), but they can deny you any other insurance product beyond that minimal level. I also assume that they can price you at some pretty epic rates based on being 'a bad risk'... but I bet there's a regulated maximum they would run up against at some point.