How would you interpret this comment?

[katilac]

3 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

The only concern is her making up things about my kid.  I'm increasing supervision to prevent opportunities for her to make allegations, not because I think anything is actually happening.  

Yes, they probably can, but honestly, that seems kind of miserable.  I am happy to help up to a point, but the point at which I have to treat tweens and teens like toddlers and police which public areas of the house they're in, is probably that point.  Like I said, an emergency would be different.  I'd figure it out.  

We generally ski most weekends in the winter.  We have season passes to a hill about 90 minutes away, so she's asking if she can come this coming Saturday, not some distant hypothetical weekend.  

If I took all 5 (or more likely 4, the 9 year old has ballet and piano on Saturday), then my assumption is that I'd stick with the little ones on the easy slopes.  I can do that for the day.  My knees would survive that.  But that means either the older 3 are stuck on the bunny slope, which isn't fair to my kids, or that they aren't within my sight.  Alternately, I could just take the older 3, enjoy a few hours with them and then retreat to my car office and get work done.  

And of course I can leave them with their own parents, but I'm responding to your comment that it won't impact their relationship, of how much they are together.  Of course, if the kids stop doing things together, it will impact their relationship.  

Right, but she could only make an allegation if two of the kids were alone together. 

If you'd rather not have them at your house if they have to stay together, that's a legit decision. 

If you'd rather not have them over or on outings if they have to be directly supervised, that is also a legit decision. But it has just sounded like having them spend less time together was not the direction you wanted to go in. 

Skiing: why would you have to take 5 kids alone? It's on their parents if they want their kids to go. 

It may affect their relationship, but they can still be very close and have a very strong bond. And I think that less time together is something that would likely happen naturally with school and activities and so forth. 

9 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

The issue is that someone I don't trust got angry at me, and made a very serious allegation against my innocent child.  I don't need to tie myself into knots to figure out some way to still provide her with free babysitting.  

My kids like playing with their cousins, and if there's a situation where that can happen that is easy to manage, then I'm fine with letting it happen.

The rule we (meaning me and DH) have decided on is that anytime any of her kids are present, my kids need to be where I, or an adult I trust, can see them.  

Hey, I'm certainly not telling you tie yourself in knots in order to provide free babysitting; I've been telling you forever to back off the free babysitting, lol. 

It sounds like you've decided that SIL did purposefully mean the comment in a bad way, and you're justifiably angry about that. You just need to make your peace with your decisions. If you've decided that they will just play together when it's easy to manage, that is absolutely valid in my book, but then there's no reason to go back and forth with potential scenarios. How will you take them all skiing? You won't. Boom. 

While it was great, and probably necessary, that they spent so much time together during the last year and a half, I also don't think it's a bad thing to pull away a bit. There is such a thing as too much family togetherness (and I say that as a person who lives a very short drive away from my parents, my siblings, and a ridiculous number of aunts, uncles, and cousins). 

[Faith-manor]

38 minutes ago, katilac said:

 

I think you're making it a bit harder than it needs to be. Isn't the biggest concern 2 kids (any 2 kids) being alone and out of eye sight? So they can all go outside and stay outside for X amount of time, staying together, where staying together means something like everyone in the front or back yard. Or they can all go in the playroom or whatever room is reasonably close to where you'll be cooking or working. If they don't want to follow those rules, then they just have to go home for the day. They don't have to be a mile apart to play in different groups. 

I don't ski and I think it looks terrifying; do 7 & 9 yr olds really go off skiing without adult supervision? At any rate, it's very public, right? I would worry about that when you have actual plans to go skiing. If you can't take them all, that's perfectly reasonable, and one of their parents will have to be there for them. 

I agree with bolt that the problem solving will work itself out as you go along. 

Kids who begin skiing young become adept very quickly. I see kids as young as five or six whooshing down the beginner hill without an adult or older teen. And it isn't even remotely easy to keep a group together on chair lifts. Sometimes when the hill is crowded, ski patrol will limit how many can go down at one time. Kids who are good on their skis get sent down without a chaperone quite often. Around here, when so say they start young, I mean young. Not uncommon to see a two year old standing on mom or dad's feet being skiied down the training hill, and by three on their own skis sandwiched in between mom or dad's skis being guided and taught how to turn, how to get up after falling. By four, going down alone on the training hill with poles while mom or dad skills behind or beside. Five? Down that beginner hill alone. Dh was skiing with his dad when he was 2.5 and soloed at five. Ski patrol keeps an eye on things. The ski resort we frequent has a ton of ski patrol (EMT's and Paramedics specifically trained for winter sports, and search and rescue.)

 

[katilac]

2 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Kids who begin skiing young become adept very quickly. I see kids as young as five or six whooshing down the beginner hill without an adult or older teen. And it isn't even remotely easy to keep a group together on chair lifts. Sometimes when the hill is crowded, ski patrol will limit how many can go down at one time. Kids who are good on their skis get sent down without a chaperone quite often. Around here, when so say they start young, I mean young. Not uncommon to see a two year old standing on mom or dad's feet being skiied down the training hill, and by three on their own skis sandwiched in between mom or dad's skis being guided and taught how to turn, how to get up after falling. By four, going down alone on the training hill with poles while mom or dad skills behind or beside. Five? Down that beginner hill alone. Dh was skiing with his dad when he was 2.5 and soloed at five. Ski patrol keeps an eye on things. The ski resort we frequent has a ton of ski patrol (EMT's and Paramedics specifically trained for winter sports, and search and rescue.)

 

Oh my gosh, that would give me a heart attack. When skiing pops up on the tv, everyone always looks like they're one bad decision away from dying. 

[katilac]

B&H, one more thing to remember is that you do not bear sole responsibility for giving the kids opportunities to be together. 

If their mom and dad value the time together, they can step it up and supervise. 

If grandpa wants to see it happen, he can graciously offer to supervise (with of course zero obligation to do so). 

Other people can do things. Other people share this responsibility. If the whole cousins thing is dependent on you, well, that's not sustainable even if this didn't happen. 

[Drama Llama]

44 minutes ago, katilac said:

Right, but she could only make an allegation if two of the kids were alone together. 

If you'd rather not have them at your house if they have to stay together, that's a legit decision. 

If you'd rather not have them over or on outings if they have to be directly supervised, that is also a legit decision. But it has just sounded like having them spend less time together was not the direction you wanted to go in. 

Skiing: why would you have to take 5 kids alone? It's on their parents if they want their kids to go. 

Their Dad doesn't ski, and she's got a nursing baby.  Realistically, there no way to have a baby there during covid, and with a 90 minute drive each way, it's not realistic for her to leave him behind.  

If she wasn't the issue then taking them would be fine.  

44 minutes ago, katilac said:

It may affect their relationship, but they can still be very close and have a very strong bond. And I think that less time together is something that would likely happen naturally with school and activities and so forth. 

Hey, I'm certainly not telling you tie yourself in knots in order to provide free babysitting; I've been telling you forever to back off the free babysitting, lol. 

It sounds like you've decided that SIL did purposefully mean the comment in a bad way, and you're justifiably angry about that.

Yes, given both the context in which she made the comment, and other events, and the fact that her reaction wasn't "Oh my goodness, I am so sorry, I wasn't thinking that way at all!" Yes, I do believe she meant to lash out.  I think it was impulsive, but now that she's shown that she's willing to lash out at my child because she's mad at an adult, and that she'll use this particular weapon, I need to be aware.  

And given that at least half the people on this thread interpreted as she was saying he did something wrong, I think it's reasonable for me not to want her to repeat that to someone else.  

44 minutes ago, katilac said:

You just need to make your peace with your decisions. If you've decided that they will just play together when it's easy to manage, that is absolutely valid in my book, but then there's no reason to go back and forth with potential scenarios. How will you take them all skiing? You won't. Boom. 

While it was great, and probably necessary, that they spent so much time together during the last year and a half, I also don't think it's a bad thing to pull away a bit. There is such a thing as too much family togetherness (and I say that as a person who lives a very short drive away from my parents, my siblings, and a ridiculous number of aunts, uncles, and cousins). 

 

[Drama Llama]

38 minutes ago, katilac said:

B&H, one more thing to remember is that you do not bear sole responsibility for giving the kids opportunities to be together. 

If their mom and dad value the time together, they can step it up and supervise. 

Ha ha.  There is no way I would let that happen.  If my concern is her making false allegations, her supervising doesn't prevent that.  It provides opportunity for that.  

38 minutes ago, katilac said:

If grandpa wants to see it happen, he can graciously offer to supervise (with of course zero obligation to do so). 

Other people can do things. Other people share this responsibility. If the whole cousins thing is dependent on you, well, that's not sustainable even if this didn't happen. 

I don't feel responsible.  I feel sad, because I think this is going to be very hard for my oldest niece, but I was responding to you saying this didn't need to change things.  I guess it doesn't need it, but it will.  

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

Oh my gosh, that would give me a heart attack. When skiing pops up on the tv, everyone always looks like they're one bad decision away from dying. 

Well, they are often competitively skiing, and ya, those speeds are crazy! Skiing for pleasure does not generally involve.quite so much risk.

Generally. One time the two ds's, 16 and 18 at the time, and had never been off the intermediate slopes, nor had any formal lessons, accidentally got off the lift at a black diamond. There are ways to get.help.from ski patrol getting off the hill. Nope. Not my boys! They just shrugged and said, "Let's go for it!" They make it down just fine, but I nearly had a heart attack upon hearing it. These are the times when it is just best for me to be in the lodge with a cup of mocha and my nose buried in a good book.

[QueenCat]

Thrilled to hear your dh is doing so well that he can now handle things like this. That has to be significant for you. 

[Katy]

I'm so impressed with how well all of you handled this.

How did SIL react when DH confronted her?  What did her DH say?

[Drama Llama]

Just now, Katy said:

I'm so impressed with how well all of you handled this.

How did SIL react when DH confronted her?  What did her DH say?

I wasn't there.  I was outside with the kids. I think she was taken aback.  She was surprised that he didn't stand up for her.  They argued.  

Her DH was there when they started, and then left and came outside.  I think that's a good sign that DH was clearly managing his temper, because I don't think he would have left her otherwise.  H He asked me what she'd said to make him mad and when I told him he was sort of shocked and said that she's never expressed concerns to him, and that he has no concerns.  

 

 

[Harriet Vane]

@Baseballandhockey You seem to understand really well the danger your sil presents, and you are basing your decision on her behavior and her words. I am impressed with your assessment/decision of what has to happen with the kids. It IS sad and unfortunate, but absolutely not your fault and you are 100% correct to protect your own kids first and foremost. Sil really does have to own the consequences of her drama--people get hurt and people don't trust her.

[Drama Llama]

9 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

@Baseballandhockey You seem to understand really well the danger your sil presents, and you are basing your decision on her behavior and her words. I am impressed with your assessment/decision of what has to happen with the kids. It IS sad and unfortunate, but absolutely not your fault and you are 100% correct to protect your own kids first and foremost. Sil really does have to own the consequences of her drama--people get hurt and people don't trust her.

I do need to put my kids first, but I also realize that the only reason why my kids are remotely OK is because DH's other siblings, and their grandfather and great-grandfather, picked up the slack when DH and I were not able to parent.   

So, not being in a position to do the same thing for her kids bothers me, and I wish there was a solution that isn't going to hurt them. 

[Harriet Vane]

26 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I do need to put my kids first, but I also realize that the only reason why my kids are remotely OK is because DH's other siblings, and their grandfather and great-grandfather, picked up the slack when DH and I were not able to parent.   

So, not being in a position to do the same thing for her kids bothers me, and I wish there was a solution that isn't going to hurt them. 

Bless you for your tender heart. It is hard to see stuff like this play out. I feel that pain with former foster kids—we are powerless over poor parenting decisions and have had to simply wait until kids are older in some cases. It doesn’t stop us from sending notes of love and gifts, of course, but it is terribly painful being sidelined by a needy person’s bone-deep dysfunction.

[HS Mom in NC]

10 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

Sil really does have to own the consequences of her drama--people get hurt and people don't trust her.

This is a really important thing many people unfamiliar with confronting dysfunction and setting boundaries don't realize.  Making it absolutely clear that you will take people at their word and act accordingly (in most situations-there can be exceptions) usually makes them less likely to play verbal games. It teaches them that words mean things and as you say, have consequences.

It's just like when someone verbalizes thinking about suicide. Responding with, "OK I'm calling 911 or taking you to the emergency room."  is appropriate because if someone really is considering suicide, they need immediate medical intervention.  It shows the rare person saying that insincerely as manipulation that suicide is a very serious matter and you will act accordingly.

On a smaller scale when someone is insincerely threatening to not participate because they're not getting everything their way in a situation where it's not their place to call all of the shots (think holiday gatherings and that difficult relative) say, "OK, enjoy your Christmas at home.  I'll call/text you in spring when it's time to figure out our Easter get together." Then hang up/send the email/text. Again, the clear message was sent: I will take you at your word and act accordingly.

In these cases it forces them to abide by what they said or admit that they didn't mean what they said. Most aren't willing to fess up, so in the future they're more likely to say what they really mean or say nothing. It's a way of calling someone's bluff without being overtly confrontational about it and instead being respectful of the person trying to manipulate/undermine you and yours.

[DreamerGirl]

1 hour ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I do need to put my kids first, but I also realize that the only reason why my kids are remotely OK is because DH's other siblings, and their grandfather and great-grandfather, picked up the slack when DH and I were not able to parent.   

I am very familiar with this because I lived almost this. But that is the beauty of this model. The concept of the village parenting. You did not slack though, you contributed even from what little I know. You are so selfless and I know how much strength it must have taken to even get up to face the day and not let others carry the load because they are reliable and it would be easier. I could not. But you did so I think you do not have to feel any guilt about not contributing. You pushed yourself to your utmost even when you could not. That is more than anyone could ever ask for.

1 hour ago, Baseballandhockey said:

So, not being in a position to do the same thing for her kids bothers me, and I wish there was a solution that isn't going to hurt them. 

When a lot of people are involved, conflict arises. There is no way to avoid that. The whole thing about "keeping the peace" which means shutting up does not exist because we are talking lots of families pooling resources. The way around what I have seen is people talking, often not very well and hurt feelings ensue. But they always, always put the children of all families involved first because that is one of the reasons this model exists. To lighten the load of parenting as in sharing child care, cooking and even elder care. But bottom line, whatever conflict is between parents and this is not rare, the children are never the target. Elders are often caught in the cross hairs like your FIL now, but everyone works together to make the children not get affected or least affected.

Both SIL and you benefited. But she decided to poison the well when she decided to attack your innocent child because of anger against you, an adult and her equal. She could have passive aggressively attacked you.  But she decided to attack an innocent child who has directly contributed to her family's welfare by baby sitting and using that to hurt him because she was angry at you . That is monstrous. So that is when you need to protect your defenseless child. You are his mother above all. This is when I would go thermonuclear if I were you.

If she had attacked you, I would have a different answer. But there is no comeback from this. You have to protect your defenseless child. You cannot leave him exposed and your duty is to him above all. I am sad for her kids for they are affected by their toxic mother's actions. You are a good person so you feel guilty. But that is on her and not on you. This could have all been avoided if she was mature enough to target her anger, even unfair against you instead of an innocent child.  

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by DreamerGirl

[Janeway]

I was sexually abused by a teenage boy that everyone thought was so nice and that he was just so nice to all of us little kids. So if I were you I’d make sure that everything your son and this girl do together is out in the open where everyone can see them. In my case, the teen boy would come to me when I was taking a nap during naptime and sneak me off and tell me I get in trouble for sneaking off so I better not tell anyone. He would act like he just really cared about me when in reality he was just sexually abusing me. nobody ever suspects it ever. So I know that we should all say oh of course there’s no way anything is going on because he’s your son, but I do not put anything past teenage boy hormones and possibilities.  While people typically do not tell stories of when they were sexually abused, the few stories I have heard it’s always an older family member as in a teenage boy. And no one at all expects it because the teenage boy is generally wonderful and great in every other way. I think the situation is rather rampant too because it’s happened to me many times by the teen when I was little-preschool age, but also, two of my brothers friends when I was older.  It happened to me from my brothers friends. And nobody ever suspected it because they were model students and everything. For me, with my sons, while I’d like to believe they would never ever do anything, I don’t want there to ever be an impression of anything out there. So I never allow them to spend time alone with girls younger than them like that. They can keep it in a public space or not at all. and I’ve actually discussed with them about how it’s not that I don’t trust them but rather it’s that giving the impression can cause issues and maybe even a false accusation which happens too.

edited for accuracy and grammar

Edited January 26, 2022 by Janeway

[HS Mom in NC]

4 hours ago, Janeway said:

I was sexually abused by a teenage boy that everyone thought was so nice and that he was just so nice to all of us little kids. So if I were you I’d make sure that everything your son and this girl do together is out in the open where everyone can see them. in my case, the teen boy would come to me when I was taking a nap during naptime and sneak me off and tell me I get in trouble for sneaking off so I better not tell anyone. He would act like he just really cared about me when in reality he was just sexually abusing me. nobody ever suspects it ever. So I know that we should all say oh of course there’s no way anything is going on because he’s your son, but I do not put anything past teenage boy hormones and possibilities.  While people typically do not tell stories of when they were sexually abused, the few stories I have heard it’s always an older family member as in a teenage boy. And no one at all expects it because the teenage boy is generally wonderful and great in every other way. I think the situation is rather rampant too because it’s happened to me three times when I was a little girl. It happened to me from my brothers friends. And nobody ever suspected it because they were model students and everything. For me, with my sons, while I’d like to believe they would never ever do anything, I don’t want there to ever be an impression of anything out there. so I never allow them to spend time alone with girls younger than them like that. they can keep it in a public space or not at all. and I’ve actually discussed with them about how it’s not that I don’t trust them but rather it’s that giving the impression can cause issues and maybe even a false accusation which happens too.

QFT.  Thank you for saying so.  It's a reality check for many moms of boys who are having a very hard stomaching the reality that nice boys in nice families can be sexual abusers.

[Drama Llama]

2 hours ago, HS Mom in NC said:

QFT.  Thank you for saying so.  It's a reality check for many moms of boys who are having a very hard stomaching the reality that nice boys in nice families can be sexual abusers.

If she had concerns and raised them as concerns, (e.g. “Given the age difference, I would feel more comfortable if they . . . Or “The last time I was there I noticed, and it made me feel like we should . . . “) then I would listen and respect her right to make decisions for her child.  She can do that without labeling my child.

 

[Harriet Vane]

Just now, Baseballandhockey said:

If she had concerns and raised them as concerns, (e.g. “Given the age difference, I would feel more comfortable if they . . . Or “The last time I was there I noticed, and it made me feel like we should . . . “) then I would listen and respect her right to make decisions for her child.  She can do that without labeling my child.

 

Yes. And it's worth pointing out that no one saw anything happen and her child never said anything happened.

[HS Mom in NC]

2 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

If she had concerns and raised them as concerns, (e.g. “Given the age difference, I would feel more comfortable if they . . . Or “The last time I was there I noticed, and it made me feel like we should . . . “) then I would listen and respect her right to make decisions for her child.  She can do that without labeling my child.

 

Did she label your child? What label did she use? I thought this whole discussion is flaky SIL using language so vague that it's open to interpretation. If that's the case, it's the opposite of labeling.

Also, I was speaking generally, not specifically about your situation, as was the poster I quoted and responded to.  You and other moms of boys need to stop personalizing this and shift gears to a generalized discussion. I know that's hard to do, but it's necessary to have constructive conversations about this. I think in general moms of boys have a very hard time admitting to themselves that their nice sons from their nice families could even possibly be tempted to sexually abuse if the opportunity arose. The fact is, it's a possibility. Again, not a certainty, a possibility.

I know that's incredibly hard to accept-I'm not saying moms of boys are bad people for not wanting to even entertain it as a possibility-I'm saying the world has plenty of moms of boys who are absolutely sure their nice boys from their nice families couldn't possibly be sexual abusers, but they are in fact sexual abusers.  There are plenty of victims who have and will find out the hard way those moms are wrong. As did the poster I responded to.  She's not lying.  I'm sure her abusers had moms who were sure their boys would never do such a thing, but they did.  The myth that only boys who have been abused abuse others is very attractive to moms of boys.  It's still a myth.  Not all sexual abusers were abused. Plenty weren't. Protecting potential victims matters more than protecting the feelings of moms of boys. I know it's hard to be lower on that ladder, but they are.

Again, I'm not saying your nutty SIL is right about your son specifically, I'm saying it's a legitimate concern in general for all moms of girls and boys and is best dealt with preemptively, not after the fact only if some sort of evidence presents itself as some posters here suggest. It's an unfortunate reality that isn't as rare as many people want to think it is. It's no different AT ALL than adult men volunteering with children.  We accept the the ugly fact that some men volunteer to work with children out of good motivations and others out of bad motivations, so we build in policies as fail safes in general, not in specific situations after evidence shows itself, to preemptively protect children because there are always going to be surprises.  That man everyone thought was such a nice man is also a sexual abuser. Too many people wait to implement policies until males are closer to legal age for some weird reason rather than viewing it as a stage of hormonal development, which is the onset of puberty (earlier in boys who were abused.) Hormones don't care about the legal age of majority-that's a social construct. Cousin/uncle/grandparent sexual abusers are common types of sexual abusers and a switch didn't flip on the day they turned 18.

[DreamerGirl]

13 hours ago, HS Mom in NC said:

You and other moms of boys need to stop personalizing this and shift gears to a generalized discussion. I know that's hard to do, but it's necessary to have constructive conversations about this. I think in general moms of boys have a very hard time admitting to themselves that their nice sons from their nice families could even possibly be tempted to sexually abuse if the opportunity arose. The fact is, it's a possibility. Again, not a certainty, a possibility.

I am the mother of a 14 year old boy and a 5 year old girl. Abuse of my children and by my children of any kind will be equally horrifying to me. because like I do not want my children to be abused I do not want my children to be abusers. 

But I resent the fact that since I am the mother of a teen boy I should be ok with anyone saying that statistically there is a possibility, I or OP should keep quiet and have an academic discussion and let anyone make vaguely accusing allegations against our boys ? ideally parents or an adult will always be there. But then what do we do with boy/girl siblings ? Not have them be together ? 

I grew up with a brother sharing a room. It is very common for siblings of opposite gender to share a room or even an entire family to share rooms because not everyone can have a room by themselves in most parts of the world unlike the US because space is that limited. Not every teenage boy is a randy goat and because statistics does not always make that a common denominator or believing that means refusing to see the possibility of abuse by men or boys. In my country of origin there are a lot of rapists. That does not mean all men in my country of origin are rapists. That would mean men of my family are potential rapists. 

I know there is a possibility of abuse by both men and women, boys and girls. Just like mothers vigorously defend their sons when we know circumstances as OP did, does not mean we are wearing blinders to the possibility of abuse. But because statistics does not mean we should have an academic discussion about abuse when it comes to our sons when people blindly accuse our sons as OP had sis in law do.

She has shown the circumstances clearly, yet many people of this thread cannot let go of the possibility that maybe, possibly her son could have because statistics. So how is it fair to her kid ? Should a teenage boy always be presumed guilty because of statistics ? Also, this can never be an academic discussion for some because we are mothers of a teenage boy. 

[OH_Homeschooler]

9 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

I am the mother of a 14 year old boy and a 5 year old girl. Abuse of my children and by my children of any kind will be equally horrifying to me. because like I do not want my children to be abused I do not want my children to be abusers. 

But I resent the fact that since I am the mother of a teen boy I should be ok with anyone saying that statistically there is a possibility, I or OP should keep quiet and have an academic discussion and let anyone make vaguely accusing allegations against our boys ? ideally parents or an adult will always be there. But then what do we do with boy/girl siblings ? Not have them be together ? 

I grew up with a brother sharing a room. It is very common for siblings of opposite gender to share a room or even an entire family to share rooms because not everyone can have a room by themselves in most parts of the world unlike the US because space is that limited. Not every teenage boy is a randy goat and because statistics does not always make that a common denominator or believing that means refusing to see the possibility of abuse by men or boys. In my country of origin there are a lot of rapists. That does not mean all men in my country of origin are rapists. That would mean men of my family are potential rapists. 

I know there is a possibility of abuse by both men and women, boys and girls. Just like mothers vigorously defend their sons when we know circumstances as OP did, does not mean we are wearing blinders to the possibility of abuse. But because statistics does not mean we should have an academic discussion about abuse when it comes to our sons when people blindly accuse our sons as OP had sis in law do.

She has shown the circumstances clearly, yet many people of this thread cannot let go of the possibility that maybe, possibly her son could have because statistics. So how is it fair to her kid ? Should a teenage boy always be presumed guilty because of statistics ? Also, this can never be an academic discussion for some because we are mothers of a teenage boy. 

I'm the mother of a teenaged boy and also female victims of sexual abuse at the hands of their father (the last person on earth I expected to be capable of such a thing). So yeah, this is certainly not going to be an academic conversation for me. I am hyper-vigilant now, even with my sweet boy. I wish I always was. 

ETA: My experience is likely skewed but I'm in a parents of victims of sexual abuse group. About half of the victims were abused by fathers, and the other half older boys (babysitters and brothers). The only other CSA case I know about IRL involved a brother and younger sister. So of course not all teen boys, but certainly, some teen boys. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by OH_Homeschooler

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

I am the mother of a 14 year old boy and a 5 year old girl. Abuse of my children and by my children of any kind will be equally horrifying to me. because like I do not want my children to be abused I do not want my children to be abusers. 

But I resent the fact that since I am the mother of a teen boy I should be ok with anyone saying that statistically there is a possibility, I or OP should keep quiet and have an academic discussion and let anyone make vaguely accusing allegations against our boys ? ideally parents or an adult will always be there. But then what do we do with boy/girl siblings ? Not have them be together ? 

I grew up with a brother sharing a room. It is very common for siblings of opposite gender to share a room or even an entire family to share rooms because not everyone can have a room by themselves in most parts of the world unlike the US because space is that limited. Not every teenage boy is a randy goat and because statistics does not always make that a common denominator or believing that means refusing to see the possibility of abuse by men or boys. In my country of origin there are a lot of rapists. That does not mean all men in my country of origin are rapists. That would mean men of my family are potential rapists. 

I know there is a possibility of abuse by both men and women, boys and girls. Just like mothers vigorously defend their sons when we know circumstances as OP did, does not mean we are wearing blinders to the possibility of abuse. But because statistics does not mean we should have an academic discussion about abuse when it comes to our sons when people blindly accuse our sons as OP had sis in law do.

She has shown the circumstances clearly, yet many people of this thread cannot let go of the possibility that maybe, possibly her son could have because statistics. So how is it fair to her kid ? Should a teenage boy always be presumed guilty because of statistics ? Also, this can never be an academic discussion for some because we are mothers of a teenage boy. 

It's not that boys are presumed guilty.  The point is that supervision of that particular mix is advisable.  It's nothing personal.  The default of supervision protects both boys and girls of all ages.  A boy is far less likely to be suspected or accused if supervision was happening.

I mean if people would rather not take any preventative action until after a young child is known to be abused, I guess that is their choice.  It doesn't seem wise to me, but then, I know a LOT of cases where inappropriate contact happened in such situations.  (Sometimes "abuse," sometimes just inappropriate contact which you don't want happening regardless.)

Just last week a girl confided to my daughter that her brothers and cousins had sexually abused her and she had never told anyone.  She is a member of a relatively conservative culture/religion.  I'm sure her folks thought ... and still think ... that their boys would never do such a thing to their sister/cousin.  I'm sure lots of boys never would.  But I personally don't recommend providing the opportunity.

Supervision also protects boys from false accusations.  Knowing someone who was falsely accused of rape as a teen (the "victim" withdrew the accusation and there was other evidence that it was false), I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone's son either.  But again ... that can be prevented without hurting anyone.

I also think it's important for parents of teen boys to educate them on the risks of false accusations and how they can prevent same.  One way is to avoid being alone with a potential accuser.

[Drama Llama]

13 hours ago, HS Mom in NC said:

Did she label your child? What label did she use? I thought this whole discussion is flaky SIL using language so vague that it's open to interpretation. If that's the case, it's the opposite of labeling.

Yes, weird is the label she put on my child, but she did so in a context where it's generally understood to mean creepy.  

13 hours ago, HS Mom in NC said:

Also, I was speaking generally, not specifically about your situation, as was the poster I quoted and responded to.  You and other moms of boys need to stop personalizing this and shift gears to a generalized discussion.

I started a thread about a specific statement that was made to my specific child.  That's not personalizing.  I am happy to have a generalized discussion about how we protect children, but it's also fine for me to ask for advice about a specific situation.  That's not "personalizing" or something I need to stop.  

In this context, I don't understand why you're lecturing about the general idea of abuse, because no one is disagreeing with you that abuse of children is a huge problem, or that abusers are statistically more likely to be male, or in certain age groups.  

13 hours ago, HS Mom in NC said:

I know that's hard to do, but it's necessary to have constructive conversations about this. I think in general moms of boys have a very hard time admitting to themselves that their nice sons from their nice families could even possibly be tempted to sexually abuse if the opportunity arose. The fact is, it's a possibility. Again, not a certainty, a possibility.

I know that's incredibly hard to accept-I'm not saying moms of boys are bad people for not wanting to even entertain it as a possibility-I'm saying the world has plenty of moms of boys who are absolutely sure their nice boys from their nice families couldn't possibly be sexual abusers, but they are in fact sexual abusers.  There are plenty of victims who have and will find out the hard way those moms are wrong. As did the poster I responded to.  She's not lying.  I'm sure her abusers had moms who were sure their boys would never do such a thing, but they did.  The myth that only boys who have been abused abuse others is very attractive to moms of boys.  It's still a myth.  Not all sexual abusers were abused. Plenty weren't. Protecting potential victims matters more than protecting the feelings of moms of boys. I know it's hard to be lower on that ladder, but they are.

I can accept the possibility that some boys abuse their cousins, and also feel that it's entirely unfair for someone to pay my son to be a childcare provider for their child, and then imply that the fact that he provided that care is a sign he is "weird".  If she thinks he shouldn't do that, then she shouldn't ask him to do that, not ask him to do that and then talk badly about him for doing what was asked.  

13 hours ago, HS Mom in NC said:

Again, I'm not saying your nutty SIL is right about your son specifically, I'm saying it's a legitimate concern in general for all moms of girls and boys and is best dealt with preemptively, not after the fact only if some sort of evidence presents itself as some posters here suggest. It's an unfortunate reality that isn't as rare as many people want to think it is. It's no different AT ALL than adult men volunteering with children.  We accept the the ugly fact that some men volunteer to work with children out of good motivations and others out of bad motivations, so we build in policies as fail safes in general, not in specific situations after evidence shows itself, to preemptively protect children because there are always going to be surprises.  That man everyone thought was such a nice man is also a sexual abuser. Too many people wait to implement policies until males are closer to legal age for some weird reason rather than viewing it as a stage of hormonal development, which is the onset of puberty (earlier in boys who were abused.) Hormones don't care about the legal age of majority-that's a social construct. Cousin/uncle/grandparent sexual abusers are common types of sexual abusers and a switch didn't flip on the day they turned 18.

 

[DreamerGirl]

1 hour ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

I'm the mother of a teenaged boy and also female victims of sexual abuse at the hands of their father (the last person on earth I expected to be capable of such a thing). So yeah, this is certainly not going to be an academic conversation for me. I am hyper-vigilant now, even with my sweet boy. I wish I always was. 

I am sorry. I wish we could all live in a world that our children are safe especially with family members. 

I am also someone who recently went to my country of origin leaving my 5 year old girl with my teen boy and DH. If for any second I would think she would be in danger from them, I would not be married any more and cut contact off with both of them because my duty as her parent is to protect her first.But do I just assume that just because statistically fathers or brothers abuse, she will be in danger. I operate from the place of I will trust them to be safe for her because I know them. That does not mean I leave her with any random person or refuse to get that abuse happens within families. 

In this case, SIL has OP's son babysitting then considers it weird because he is a teen boy and she has a girl ? Any concerned parent will cut off contact at once, not make vaguely accusing comments. They will forcefully confront because every parent's primary duty is protect their child for me from those that would harm them. And that includes people making false accusations against their child. OP has clearly said what the circumstances are and unless people think she is lying, I do not get why they are throwing statistics at her and asking her to have an academic discussion. 

it is terrifying as the mother of a teen son that this is what some people can believe because statistics. 

1 hour ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

ETA: My experience is likely skewed but I'm in a parents of victims of sexual abuse group. About half of the victims were abused by fathers, and the other half older boys (babysitters and brothers). The only other CSA case I know about IRL involved a brother and younger sister. So of course not all teen boys, but certainly, some teen boys. 

Some teen boys also, some married female public school teachers towards them. People like Ghislaine Maxwell. Where is the line ?

For me, Anyone is capable of abuse, that is the bottom line. Male and Female. Old and young. So we try all we can to protect and live our lives. Anyone's gender or age does not make them automatically safe or the flip side automatically guilty because statistics. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by DreamerGirl

[Murphy101]

 

1 hour ago, DreamerGirl said:

I am the mother of a 14 year old boy and a 5 year old girl. Abuse of my children and by my children of any kind will be equally horrifying to me. because like I do not want my children to be abused I do not want my children to be abusers. 

But I resent the fact that since I am the mother of a teen boy I should be ok with anyone saying that statistically there is a possibility, I or OP should keep quiet and have an academic discussion and let anyone make vaguely accusing allegations against our boys ? ideally parents or an adult will always be there. But then what do we do with boy/girl siblings ? Not have them be together ? 

I grew up with a brother sharing a room. It is very common for siblings of opposite gender to share a room or even an entire family to share rooms because not everyone can have a room by themselves in most parts of the world unlike the US because space is that limited. Not every teenage boy is a randy goat and because statistics does not always make that a common denominator or believing that means refusing to see the possibility of abuse by men or boys. In my country of origin there are a lot of rapists. That does not mean all men in my country of origin are rapists. That would mean men of my family are potential rapists. 

I know there is a possibility of abuse by both men and women, boys and girls. Just like mothers vigorously defend their sons when we know circumstances as OP did, does not mean we are wearing blinders to the possibility of abuse. But because statistics does not mean we should have an academic discussion about abuse when it comes to our sons when people blindly accuse our sons as OP had sis in law do.

She has shown the circumstances clearly, yet many people of this thread cannot let go of the possibility that maybe, possibly her son could have because statistics. So how is it fair to her kid ? Should a teenage boy always be presumed guilty because of statistics ? Also, this can never be an academic discussion for some because we are mothers of a teenage boy. 

This. I have seven sons. Right about 12-14ish age we pull them aside and have to have The Talk. Not the puberty talk. Not the where babies come from talk.  Because they already know that. No. We have to have the “Because some people are evil predatory bastards and way more people seem ready to think  everyone could be an evil predatory bastard - the only way you can avoid the possibility of scandal is to never be alone with a minor or even girls your own age that you are not actively in a relationship with” talk. 

And it makes me really angry that I have to have that talk not because there’s any actually worry at all about MY boys but because someone thinks a low statistical number of men should taint how all men are raised and associate with children and women. Statistically very few men are pedophiles or rapist.  There’s no rational or statistical reason to raise men under the shadow of such potential horrific accusation.  And nothing to suggest such puritan behavior protects children from such abuse either.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

OP. I hate that it will cause a cousin rift, but that’s on her. She doesn’t get to imply it’s inappropriate for your son to have a close friendly relationship with his cousin and then get to have her knickers in a wad when the only obvious solution is that, okay then these two kids don’t get to be together at functions anymore.  I would not take her kids skiing with me. I would pretty much no longer be babysitting her kids at all. Because she absolutely can make another accusation of whatever she thinks happens while you babysit. I just wouldn’t want a situation of you said vs she said. 

I think that’s sad and it would absolutely anger and sadden me. But that’s the situation she set up if the “weird” = “creepy” application is accurate.  If she meant it’s weird bc he should be more mature or he should think little kids are all annoying or he is too big to put ip with them - well she’s still rude as heck at best, which still would make me rethink her level of involvement in his life. 

[OH_Homeschooler]

30 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

I am also someone who recently went to my country of origin leaving my 5 year old girl with my teen boy and DH. If for any second I would think she would be in danger from them, I would not be married any more and cut contact off with both of them because my duty as her parent is to protect her first.But do I just assume that just because statistically fathers or brothers abuse, she will be in danger. I operate from the place of I will trust them to be safe for her because I know them. That does not mean I leave her with any random person or refuse to get that abuse happens within families. 

I also traveled and didn't have a second thought about leaving my children with my ex-husband. I hope you understand that I didn't stay married to someone I suspected was capable of doing that. No one ever suspects. Abusers are good at hiding what they do. They are often model citizens.

And of course anyone is capable of doing it, but statistics are also not to be ignored. A male is simply more likely to victimize than a female. It's simply the truth. People only have so much energy to spend, and it is beneficial to place that where there is more likelihood of harm. 

[DreamerGirl]

42 minutes ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

I also traveled and didn't have a second thought about leaving my children with my ex-husband. I hope you understand that I didn't stay married to someone I suspected was capable of doing that. No one ever suspects. Abusers are good at hiding what they do. They are often model citizens.

Oh no, I hope I did not give that impression. I am so sorry if I did.  I am sorry that happened to you. 

42 minutes ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

And of course anyone is capable of doing it, but statistics are also not to be ignored. A male is simply more likely to victimize than a female.

I get statistics too. My country of origin, groping is very common on public transportation, covering yourself from neck to ankles does not stop it. But it happened to my brother too. It is just that girls getting groped was more talked about and boys being groped was looked at as practically impossible. This is my experience.

42 minutes ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

It's simply the truth. People only have so much energy to spend, and it is beneficial to place that where there is more likelihood of harm. 

I look at circumstances and the person over some statistics. I think this an unfair way and lazy way to say I will automatically assume something because statistics. OP knows her son, there is a history with the SIL. Should she disregard that because statistics and not believe her own child over the SIL ? Should I being a listener to this automatically assume even if I know about the history with the SIL and automatically assume because teenage boy statistics and not look at the circumstantial evidence. Nothing here suggests that OP is lying and she is somehow wrong for not looking at the possibility that her son is an abuser. 

No, I will never, ever care about statistics over circumstances. It is incredibly lazy to do so. It harms someone who is innocent. We do better by looking at circumstances. Not automatically assume someone is guilty because of age and gender. 

That is why I say again, OP should go thermonuclear and cut off contact with SIL. Based on this thread, it is terrifying that an innocent kid who tried to help his extended family by babysitting his cousins could be accused of something terrible and strangers will believe because statistics. Let us all do better because these accusations are life altering too. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by DreamerGirl

[SKL]

Who is saying anyone should "automatically assume" anything about anybody?

The point is to avoid structuring kids' time so there is an opportunity for that kind of behavior. 

Because first of all, it is very very common for girls to be sexually victimized.  I read it was 50% back when I was in college.  And usually things like that are underreported.

Secondly, I don't believe parents can tell whether or not their kid is likely to be that statistic.  If parents could predict that, it wouldn't happen to so many.

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

The point is to avoid structuring kids' time so there is an opportunity for that kind of behavior. 

How easy would it be to structure your girls' time so that they were never alone together once they were no longer small children who required constant supervision? For people who don't share a household, that's one thing, but it would require an extreme level of supervision and control to not have siblings ever unattended together. OP has a little more control in her particular case, since these are frequent visitors and not actually living there, but the conversation seems to be reading that even siblings should never be together without supervision if one is a boy, and I don't know how that works out practically.

[DreamerGirl]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

but the conversation seems to be reading that even siblings should never be together without supervision if one is a boy, and I don't know how that works out practically.

This. 

How in the world do a brother and sister grow up in a healthy way if the default assumption is statistics say boys will abuse more so automatically presume that. ?

For that matter fathers and daughters ?

That does not mean I am saying abuse does not exist or denying statistics. But are we saying we must parent or base relationships between siblings of opposite gender or parent of opposite gender on statistics because I am truly not getting what is said. 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by DreamerGirl

[Drama Llama]

4 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

This. I have seven sons. Right about 12-14ish age we pull them aside and have to have The Talk. Not the puberty talk. Not the where babies come from talk.  Because they already know that. No. We have to have the “Because some people are evil predatory bastards and way more people seem ready to think  everyone could be an evil predatory bastard - the only way you can avoid the possibility of scandal is to never be alone with a minor or even girls your own age that you are not actively in a relationship with” talk. 

And it makes me really angry that I have to have that talk not because there’s any actually worry at all about MY boys but because someone thinks a low statistical number of men should taint how all men are raised and associate with children and women. Statistically very few men are pedophiles or rapist.  There’s no rational or statistical reason to raise men under the shadow of such potential horrific accusation.  And nothing to suggest such puritan behavior protects children from such abuse either.

I have had plenty of talks with my boys.  They’ve both been through volunteer training for Special Olympics.  They’re Scouts and Catholic and at least in our troop and parish and school that means very clear boundaries.  Both DH and I worked in fields where child sex abuse was an issue that came up a lot.  So, we’ve had a lot of conversations.  I am good at talking to my kids about this issue.

But there is a difference between telling your kid “protect yourself because someone might make a false allegation” and “protect yourself because your aunt might make a false allegation”.  The latter was not fun.

[Dianthus]

27 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

But there is a difference between telling your kid “protect yourself because someone might make a false allegation” and “protect yourself because your aunt might make a false allegation”.  The latter was not fun.

Do your kids like the aunt, or do they realize she is difficult?

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, Spirea said:

Do your kids like the aunt, or do they realize she is difficult?

Both?

I am not sure if they like her, but they love her.  They also know that she’s difficult.  I try to keep them out of conflict but her oldest kid often repeats what she says, so they hear through her.  She has made some false statements about me recently that they have heard, for example, that her daughter repeated to them.

[Harriet Vane]

14 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Both?

I am not sure if they like her, but they love her.  They also know that she’s difficult.  I try to keep them out of conflict but her oldest kid often repeats what she says, so they hear through her.  She has made some false statements about me recently that they have heard, for example, that her daughter repeated to them.

Her jealousy, her willingness to fling out accusations (to your son, to others about you--thinking about other threads), and her willingness to lie are really, really concerning, especially in light of her post-partum depression. She sounds like she is in a dark place.

[Drama Llama]

1 minute ago, Harriet Vane said:

Her jealousy, her willingness to fling out accusations (to your son, to others about you--thinking about other threads), and her willingness to lie are really, really concerning, especially in light of her post-partum depression. She sounds like she is in a dark place.

Yes, which is both why I worry, and also why I am not willing to just walk away and cut her off.  Because she's someone the people I love love deeply who is in pain.  Plus her kids are stuck with her.  

Her oldest also really struggles, and they feed into each other.  I wish I knew how to help.  

[mathnerd]

9 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I wish I knew how to help.  

I am only guessing (i am not a mental health professional, but have navigated many landmines in family dynamics involving narc relatives): she is jealous because she is the daughter of the family while you are the "daughter" actually living with her parents with your kids and doing the things that adult daughters do for their parents. That seems to be setting her off and triggering resentment and jealousy.

It looks like she is being immature, petty, competitive and jealous of your relationship with your in-laws and the fact that your kids have more access to their grandparents than her daughters. She seems to be lashing out at you and your kids and attacking in an effort to disrupt the warm, trusting and mutually helpful relationship that you have developed with them. It could even be a subconscious reaction given her mental health struggles.

There is nothing that you can do that will help. What will help is if her parents reassured her that she is very valuable to them (again, my observation based on my own extended family) and that they will help her through her struggles to whatever extent they can. You can not ask them to do that, but hopefully they will eventually figure it out and get there. In the meantime, be unavailable to baby sit or take her kids on outings. She may come up with a bizarre accusation that the aunt (you) did something "weird" to her daughter during a ski trip or that only a "weird" aunt would take her niece on a trip where all the kids are boys etc. Let your FIL take the kids on such a trip so that you are not on the receiving end!

[Murphy101]

5 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I have had plenty of talks with my boys.  They’ve both been through volunteer training for Special Olympics.  They’re Scouts and Catholic and at least in our troop and parish and school that means very clear boundaries.  Both DH and I worked in fields where child sex abuse was an issue that came up a lot.  So, we’ve had a lot of conversations.  I am good at talking to my kids about this issue.

But there is a difference between telling your kid “protect yourself because someone might make a false allegation” and “protect yourself because your aunt might make a false allegation”.  The latter was not fun.

I completely agree. That’s why I would have a very hard time continuing to hang out with her or her kids.  I see zero non-nightmare ways to navigate that relationship tightrope so I’d rather just not walk it with her. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Murphy101

[Harriet Vane]

2 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Yes, which is both why I worry, and also why I am not willing to just walk away and cut her off.  Because she's someone the people I love love deeply who is in pain.  Plus her kids are stuck with her.  

Her oldest also really struggles, and they feed into each other.  I wish I knew how to help.  

I've been thinking about this.

The sad, hard thing is that she has placed you in a position where you are unable to help her, specifically because she is fixating on you and especially because she has real potential to damage your children.

Quietly removing yourself and your kids from her reach may actually decrease her stress?

And I think the others in the family are now the ones who can help her most--your help is perceived negatively, but attention from fil, gfil, and the other siblings is received positively by her. So it seems it may really help if you're not hands on--for her sake.

It doesn't mean giving up on her. Your compassion for her is a beautiful thing. Rather than giving up on her, it is stepping out of the way for others to reach her more effectively. Not your fault, but by her own choice due to her behavior. 

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

attention from fil, gfil, and the other siblings is received positively by her.

No, this isn't accurate. 

[Harriet Vane]

8 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

No, this isn't accurate. 

Sorry--it's hard to know the real deal from posts. I had that impression. I vaguely remember her wanting to go to Mass with gfil or something along those lines. 

Either way, I have the impression she is fixating on you and really jealous, so my thought was to take that source of stress from her. Which also protects your children from someone who is lashing out.

But you're there, boots on the ground, and I'm not. Take what seems to fit what you see going on and discard what doesn't apply. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Harriet Vane
typo

[Drama Llama]

27 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

Sorry--it's hard to know the real deal from posts. I had that impression. I vaguely remember her wanting to go to Mass with gfil or something along those lines. 

Either way, I have the impression she is fixating on you and really jealous, so my thought was to take that source of stress from her. Which also protects your children from someone who is lashing out.

But you're there, boots on the ground, and I'm not. Take what seems to fit what you see going on and discard what doesn't apply. 

Her Dad's attention is generally welcome, but her siblings, other than my DH, have the same dynamic I have.  

[Clarita]

5 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

But there is a difference between telling your kid “protect yourself because someone might make a false allegation” and “protect yourself because your aunt might make a false allegation”.  The latter was not fun.

Honestly, I highly doubt your son doesn't already know this. In my experience (as the child in the difficult talk situation), it'll be liberating for the two of you to bring it out to the open. As much as my mom was to protect me about the ugliness of the world, I too was trying to protect her from knowing her little girl's innocence was already gone. 

[Lecka]

I think it sounds like many adults are appropriately prioritizing the children involved.  I think some of the task of supporting the SIL’s children will be picked up by other adults involved.

It sounds like there are a lot of stable adults involved in this situation, which is really good!

I think that for things you have been doing and will stop doing — have some trust that other adults will step in.  I think it’s also possible you won’t know all the details of this because it could be rude to update you — what would another IL say — “we have been spending extra time with SIL’s daughters after she went after your son.”   
 

I think though, that all these people who care about you and have supported you, will also support her and her kids.

 

But I think it might be an appropriate boundary for you not to be filled in on every detail of this in the short term.  Like — I hope you have a general sense that they are involved, but you don’t need to know all about it.  It is something where it might be appropriate for you to step back and trust other people.

 

It doesn’t come across as a situation where nobody will help if you don’t.  And it also doesn’t come across like their family situation is dire.  If you aren’t helping they sound like they could figure out other options, as well as continue to receive family support.