How would you interpret this comment?

[Harriet Vane]

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Mama bear comment was related to other posters who were up in arms anyone would ever think their sons could ever be considered a risk, not the OP. Just FYI. 

It is completely possible to recognize the reality that kids are molested sometimes while also recognizing the inappropriateness of suggesting that about someone in particular with no evidence whatsoever. Both realities exist.

This is simply not something anyone should ever be flippant about. It's just too serious.

If the OP's sil is worried about her daughter's safety, she should not be contentedly using the OP and her son for childcare. If her daughter has not told her anything happened (and so far there's been no suggestion that there is any actual, specific accusation) and no one else claims to have observed anything happening, then it is absolutely, completely inappropriate and dangerous to suggest such a thing about an innocent kid. That's why the mama-bear response.

 

[Melissa Louise]

10 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

If the goal is truly to continue such a close and intertwined family relationship, I'm wondering how these two posts (quoted above) could co-exist.

How could Baseballandhockey "go thermonuclear" on her SIL if she still needs to try to keep the peace (because she will still be seeing the SIL on a very regular basis,) so the rest of the family members aren't forced to take sides? How could she keep the SIL "out of her house and her life" based upon one unwanted comment about her ds? 

Obviously, if the SIL continues to make similar remarks, the situation will need to be addressed, but you seem to be having such a visceral reaction to a brief comment that many people wouldn't consider to be a big deal, so I'm wondering what you think Baseballandhockey should do about it right now -- considering the fact that she apparently can't just cut her SIL out of her life if things go poorly and the confrontation turns into a big fight.

Yes, going nuclear rarely works out well for an in law.

Families are weird and behave in unexpected ways towards she who instigates the explosion! 

 

 

[DreamerGirl]

41 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Sure. Good and bad. It's just harder to have tight boundaries in the same space. 

 

Agreed.

[DreamerGirl]

NM

Edited January 24, 2022 by DreamerGirl

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, Harriet Vane said:

It is completely possible to recognize the reality that kids are molested sometimes while also recognizing the inappropriateness of suggesting that about someone in particular with no evidence whatsoever. Both realities exist.

This is simply not something anyone should ever be flippant about. It's just too serious.

If the OP's sil is worried about her daughter's safety, she should not be contentedly using the OP and her son for childcare. If her daughter has not told her anything happened (and so far there's been no suggestion that there is any actual, specific accusation) and no one else claims to have observed anything happening, then it is absolutely, completely inappropriate and dangerous to suggest such a thing about an innocent kid. That's why the mama-bear response.

 

I feel like I might have missed a post somewhere (which often happens when I’m on my phone,) because I didn’t get the impression that the SIL had insinuated anything sexual at all. 

I thought she might just have either been wondering why her dd would want to play with a much older cousin instead of with kids her own age, or why BaseballandHockey’s ds would want to play with a much younger cousin instead of hanging out with teens his own age.

I don’t understand the immediate leap to thinking that the SIL thinks BaseballandHockey’s ds is some kind of pervert. I’m also not sure why people seem to believe that there is no possibility that the SIL didn’t have an ulterior motive when she made her comment. I know the SIL sounds like a jerk, but even jerks say stupid things sometimes without thinking. If the SIL really believed BaseballandHockey’s ds might be a child molester, I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t let him babysit for her children. 

I guess I just don’t see a reason to make a big fuss over one comment. If the comments continue, then yes, absolutely address it, but right now, it seems like bringing up a remark that the SIL may not even remember having made, could start trouble where none was intended, and BaseballandHockey and her SIL could end up in a big fight over nothing — and put creepy ideas into the SIL’s head when previously there were none. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Catwoman
Because put and out are not the same word no matter what autocorrect says

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, DreamerGirl said:

Sadly, I am very familiar with the how tos because it is a toxic part of the joint family. In my culture, it is common for families of multiple siblings to reside under one roof. Some of the worst parts of it is someone discipling you other than your parents or grandparents as in the uncles and aunts and it would often include physical violence while their kid would be spared. It is a toxic part of living together.

It is possibly by not keeping the peace or accepting that SIL is like that so OP has to give in This is all language that is used to make a bully which is what SIL is in my opinion not get away with it. You do not keep the peace, you say you do not speak this way to my kid, you confront. You rock the boat. You always, always have your kids back. I grew up in a largely supportive family surrounded by cousins though we did not live together. But our lives overlapped like OPs. But my parents always had our backs. When I wanted to come here for instance, many in my extended family opposed and thought my parents should discipline me and raise me better. My parents had to face lots of opposition from outside forces who always put their nose in not their business and have double standards for their kids vs others. Especially in huge families you need to have firm boundaries. My parents always had our backs. It is always a few rotten eggs who are loud. But does not mean the rest is rotten too.

Speaking up and not always keeping the peace. Confronting. Not silencing the voice that raises doubt and doing mental gymnastics that SIL did not mean it that way. In my case, I go thermo nuclear because I have been down this road unfortunately so I tend to protect my kids from toxic people who always have something to say when we go back. I refuse to let them meet my kids, no second chance. If they were nasty to me as a kid, no contact now and they do not meet my kids. I do not even give them a chance with my kids.

OP cannot be thermonuclear in her case, but she must confront. Not let it slide because it will escalate otherwise. She must not keep the peace and in some cases it needs to go thermonuclear because you need to have firm boundaries around your kids from toxic people. People know not to mess with me when it comes to my kids. No sly passive aggressive comment or I will confront and ask exactly what they mean. Most times they back off because they do not expect that. In this case, if anyone said that about my kid it will only be a malicious person and that will be an end to the relationship for me because it would have been a pattern like a slow drip to see how much they can get away with. But that is my experience. 

But seriously, what is there to confront? 

Why would you assume that one quick question (about whether or not it was weird that the cousins liked to spend a lot of time together) is going to escalate into something malicious and sinister, particularly when this same SIL welcomes BaseballandHockey’s son as a babysitter for her children? 

Is there any indication that the SIL doesn’t like BaseballandHockey’s son, or that she wants to harm him in any way? Is there history here that I’m not aware of? 

The SIL could have just as easily been wondering if it was weird that her own dd liked to spend a lot of time with a much older cousin. 

Again, I know none of us is particularly fond of the SIL, but a lot of assumptions are being made here without any actual evidence other than one brief remark.

[katilac]

13 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

<snip> I don’t understand the immediate leap to thinking that the SIL thinks BaseballandHockey’s ds is some kind of pervert. <snip>

I guess I just don’t see a reason to make a big fuss over one comment. <snip>

Right. Weird might have meant exactly that, weird, with no thought of creepy. 

And there's a big ol' section in the middle between doing nothing and making big announcements and so forth. OP can just quietly amp the level of supervision and tell her own kids to stay in groups, decline invitations that don't work for her, and so on. She doesn't have to answer questions about rule changes, just "that's the way we're doing it" or "because I said so" or whatever. 

 

[Harriet Vane]

18 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I feel like I might have missed a post somewhere (which often happens when I’m on my phone,) because I didn’t get the impression that the SIL had insinuated anything sexual at all. 

I thought she might just have either been wondering why her dd would want to play with a much older cousin instead of with kids her own age, or why BaseballandHockey’s ds would want to play with a much younger cousin instead of hanging out with teens his own age.

I don’t understand the immediate leap to thinking that the SIL thinks BaseballandHockey’s ds is some kind of pervert. I’m also not sure why people seem to believe that there is no possibility that the SIL didn’t have an ulterior motive when she made her comment. I know the SIL sounds like a jerk, but even jerks say stupid things sometimes without thinking. If the SIL really believed BaseballandHockey’s ds might be a child molester, I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t let him babysit for her children. 

I guess I just don’t see a reason to make a big fuss over one comment. If the comments continue, then yes, absolutely address it, but right now, it seems like bringing up a remark that the SIL may not even remember having made, could start trouble where none was intended, and BaseballandHockey and her SIL could end up in a big fight over nothing — and put creepy ideas into the SIL’s head when previously there were none. 

I am taking my cues from the OP (this is, indeed, what she is asking about) and from the fact that sil's sister confronted her about it as well (mentioned in a separate post). It's not just the OP who wondered what on earth sil was really saying--sil's sister did too, forcefully enough to have a conversation about it immediately. I am also taking cues from past history with sil, and I am drawing from my own experience as a foster parent.

I think sil is likely pot-stirring, but this particular insinuation has potential to hurt a sweet kid.

Hinting around without specifically accusing is so very, very damaging. It needs to be nipped in the bud.

[Drama Llama]

9 minutes ago, katilac said:

Right. Weird might have meant exactly that, weird, with no thought of creepy. 

And there's a big ol' section in the middle between doing nothing and making big announcements and so forth. OP can just quietly amp the level of supervision and tell her own kids to stay in groups, decline invitations that don't work for her, and so on. She doesn't have to answer questions about rule changes, just "that's the way we're doing it" or "because I said so" or whatever. 

 

Does that work for other people's kids?  

I can't imagine just telling my kids -- you've done it this way for a year and a half.   We set it up so it happened.  And no, all of a sudden we need you to just stop doing the things you've been doing?  

Your kids wouldn't ask questions, or get anxious when you said "because I said so" as a reason?  

[lovinmyboys]

I haven’t read all the replies, but I am really surprised at the number of people who think this is weird or wouldn’t allow it. My kids(all boys) have 18 cousins and my older two are some of the older cousins. In general, it seems the older cousins love to play with the cousins age 3-8. They are cute and fun at that age and past the baby stage. Once they hit 9 or so, the teens are much less likely to want to hang with them. The 14yr olds in general would rather play with the 7yr old cousins than the 11yr old cousins. 
 

When I was that age I loved little kids and probably would have babysat for free. I loved doing crafts and making up games. When my kids were young we had a very cool middle school neighbor that would often come over and teach them tricks on the trampoline. It never occurred to me that would be weird.

 

I know there are a lot of family dynamics in play in this particular situation. It is hard for me to know what I would do. We have some weird family stuff too, so we are moving across the ocean, lol. I don’t think that is an option for OP.

Mostly I was just jumping in to say that I think it can be very normal for young teens of both sexes to enjoy playing with their younger cousins. 

[Drama Llama]

27 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I feel like I might have missed a post somewhere (which often happens when I’m on my phone,) because I didn’t get the impression that the SIL had insinuated anything sexual at all. 

I thought she might just have either been wondering why her dd would want to play with a much older cousin instead of with kids her own age, or why BaseballandHockey’s ds would want to play with a much younger cousin instead of hanging out with teens his own age.

That isn't an option.   They're choosing to play with each other at family gatherings where there are no other 7 year olds, or teenagers.  They started playing together during a pandemic when neither of them was seeing any kids outside of the family for a year.  

Sometimes the 7 year old wants a break from always playing with her 9 year old sister.  Sometimes the 14 year old wants a break from always playing with his brother and the 11 year old.  So, they spend time together.  

 

27 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I don’t understand the immediate leap to thinking that the SIL thinks BaseballandHockey’s ds is some kind of pervert. I’m also not sure why people seem to believe that there is no possibility that the SIL didn’t have an ulterior motive when she made her comment. I know the SIL sounds like a jerk, but even jerks say stupid things sometimes without thinking. If the SIL really believed BaseballandHockey’s ds might be a child molester, I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t let him babysit for her children. 

I guess I just don’t see a reason to make a big fuss over one comment. If the comments continue, then yes, absolutely address it, but right now, it seems like bringing up a remark that the SIL may not even remember having made, could start trouble where none was intended, and BaseballandHockey and her SIL could end up in a big fight over nothing — and put creepy ideas into the SIL’s head when previously there were none. 

 

[Drama Llama]

4 hours ago, regentrude said:

I have been thinking this for a while now, but didn't dare suggest.
Based on her previous posts, all of these problems seem to be related to the multigenerational household situation of the OP's nuclear family and their unusually intimate entanglement with extended family. Which may provide some advantages, but they seem to cause more distress and trouble than they might be worth.
This seems to lay at the root of all these issues, and any band-aid fixes aren't likely to be long-term solutions.

There are good reasons why we live together.  We lived together before SIL moved to the area.  

[Catwoman]

14 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

That isn't an option.   They're choosing to play with each other at family gatherings where there are no other 7 year olds, or teenagers.  They started playing together during a pandemic when neither of them was seeing any kids outside of the family for a year.  

Sometimes the 7 year old wants a break from always playing with her 9 year old sister.  Sometimes the 14 year old wants a break from always playing with his brother and the 11 year old.  So, they spend time together.  

 

 

For what it’s worth, I think it’s very sweet that the kids play together so well!  🙂 

[SKL]

Interesting mix of responses here.

Based on my personal life experiences, I would not regularly put a 14yo boy alone with a 7yo girl.  It's wonderful if they have a good relationship, but it can be supervised.

I wouldn't be asking if people think it's weird.  Even if I felt weird about it, that question would be both unkind and pointless.  If I am not comfortable with the arrangement, I as the mom of either child should do something about it.  Not just talk about it and get others talking about it.  But maybe SIL was trying to see how the other relatives would react if she insisted on no unsupervised time together for those two kids.

ETA I also agree that "weird" may just mean something like "is 14yo really immature or something?"

Edited January 24, 2022 by SKL

[lovinmyboys]

Nm

Edited January 24, 2022 by lovinmyboys

[katilac]

2 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Does that work for other people's kids?  

I can't imagine just telling my kids -- you've done it this way for a year and a half.   We set it up so it happened.  And no, all of a sudden we need you to just stop doing the things you've been doing?  

Your kids wouldn't ask questions, or get anxious when you said "because I said so" as a reason?  

I wasn't clear - I didn't mean to tell your own kids "because that's the way we're doing things" or "because I said so," but rather other people who might question your decisions. SIL, her kids, whomever, you don't have to explain your parenting decisions to anyone. 

I actually don't think it's any big deal to tell kids that yes, we used to do it one way, and now we're going to do it another way. Why? I've thought about it and think this way is better. Having you here instead of there makes it easier to keep an eye on things. I know we didn't do it this way before, but sometimes we realize there's a better way of doing things. 

It's not actually going to be much of a change unless the kids have been going out of sight in sets of two anyway, and I think your kids are plenty old enough to understand why it might be a good idea to curtail that. 

 

[DreamerGirl]

11 hours ago, Catwoman said:

But seriously, what is there to confront? 

Why would you assume that one quick question (about whether or not it was weird that the cousins liked to spend a lot of time together) is going to escalate into something malicious and sinister, particularly when this same SIL welcomes BaseballandHockey’s son as a babysitter for her children? 

 

 This is why it is weird to me said eloquently 

10 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

Hinting around without specifically accusing is so very, very damaging. It needs to be nipped in the bud.

Also the SIL doesn't welcome Op's son, she is using him to baby sit. The difference is the words, complimentary vs vaguely accusatory.  This is a red flag. 

She wants the benefits of babysitting while still uses vaguely accusatory words that OP would be considered sensitive or easily offended if she brings it up. 

OP has listened to that red flag. She cannot really pin point why she feels uneasy but she wonders if she really is making a big deal. This is a typical scenario where red flags are there and since people are not exactly able to articulate they are taught to suppress it. 

11 hours ago, Catwoman said:

*snip* Is there history here that I’m not aware of? 

Yes IMO.

11 hours ago, Catwoman said:

The SIL could have just as easily been wondering if it was weird that her own dd liked to spend a lot of time with a much older cousin. 

*snip* , but a lot of assumptions are being made here without any actual evidence other than one brief remark.

The easiest way I learned to listen to a red flag feeling when I cannot articulate exactly why is the above. When I have to do mental gymnastics to justify why I should not feel the way I feel.

The usual questions I ask myself are, Am I being unfair ? Did I mistake what was said ? Did they really mean it like that ? Am I being too sensitive ? 

The minute I need to justify to myself why I should not feel that way, that is when I know I am probably right.

This simple method has saved me from a lot of toxic people, relationships and situations. YMMV.

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by DreamerGirl

[Murphy101]

As someone who gets comments about my 19-27 year old boys buying car seats for their cars so they can pick up their youngest baby sister for play dates - I can say I am highly offended when people say it’s weird. It’s not weird. It’s family members making a concerted effort to stay connected and involved with people they love. And yes even male family members feel a need to do that if the family dynamics are such that encourage that. No one has ever said a thing about my grown daughter doing the exact same thing.

They may not mean weird as in sexual but they sure don’t mean weird as in what a mature young manly man either.

My response is to call them on it. “What, exactly, are you saying about my son?”

Crap like this is why men are so unlikely to chose jobs where they would work with minors, especially young children. 

[fairfarmhand]

If a comment like this were to ever come up again, a gentle, sweet, "hmm..,what do you mean?" might clarify what is being implied.

She could be implying creepiness.

She could be implying that OP's son is "SOOOO immature that he'd rather play with a SEVEN year old." 

She could just think it's weird for a young teen and a little kid to spend time together because when SHE was 14 she was all about malls and shopping and boys and thinks that teens who like little kids are just SO WEIRD. 

This would press her to be more specific because to me, the vagueness would be what preyed on my mind. 

[Drama Llama]

7 hours ago, katilac said:

I wasn't clear - I didn't mean to tell your own kids "because that's the way we're doing things" or "because I said so," but rather other people who might question your decisions. SIL, her kids, whomever, you don't have to explain your parenting decisions to anyone. 

I actually don't think it's any big deal to tell kids that yes, we used to do it one way, and now we're going to do it another way. Why? I've thought about it and think this way is better. Having you here instead of there makes it easier to keep an eye on things. I know we didn't do it this way before, but sometimes we realize there's a better way of doing things. 

It's not actually going to be much of a change unless the kids have been going out of sight in sets of two anyway, and I think your kids are plenty old enough to understand why it might be a good idea to curtail that. 

 

When they are ending up by themselves it’s not like they are sneaking off.  

It’s more like 3 older kids are playing soccer, 2 younger kids are sidewalk chalking.  9 year old wanders off to read a book and the 7 year old comes over and asks to play soccer.  DS14 says sure you can be on my team, but her sister says “I don’t want to play with a baby!  Let’s go play legos!”  and then the two eleven year olds go inside, and the two of them are playing soccer by themselves. 

Or it’s 14 year old’s turn to make lunch and the 7 year old asks to help.  Her mom is right there and could easily say “no, stay here” or “let me keep you company” or make lunch herself, but mom seems fine with it so he takes her with him and then they are alone in the kitchen.  

Honestly, it feels like he is doing things that have been modeled for him by older cousins, or that we have specifically given him feedback are kind, and it seems unfair to now reframe it as “going off by yourselves”.  They are never in a space where someone couldn’t walk in.  But they are sometimes in spaces where there aren’t other people.

Keep in mind that they were together 40-50 hours a week for most of a year.  I don’t think most groups of 5 kids would constantly stay in a large group for that amount of time.  They’d play in various groupings. 

[KungFuPanda]

I don’t even get how it’s weird in this instance. These kids share common interests. I grew up spending a lot of time with a lot of cousins. We didn’t have the internet and we’re expected to play outside. The groups formed around activities, not ages. You’d have a group climbing trees, a group playing ball, a group drawing, and a group looking for bugs or whatever. It wasn’t school. Why would you divide by age instead? This isn’t exclusively a homeschooler trait.  
 

It sounds like they’re outside together actively perusing their shared hobby. (Was it skateboarding? I forgot.) It’s weird to make that weird. It’s not weird to play with the kids that are around and 14-year-old boys still need to play a LOT.

[Murphy101]

10 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

When they are ending up by themselves it’s not like they are sneaking off.  

It’s more like 3 older kids are playing soccer, 2 younger kids are sidewalk chalking.  9 year old wanders off to read a book and the 7 year old comes over and asks to play soccer.  DS14 says sure you can be on my team, but her sister says “I don’t want to play with a baby!  Let’s go play legos!”  and then the two eleven year olds go inside, and the two of them are playing soccer by themselves. 

Or it’s 14 year old’s turn to make lunch and the 7 year old asks to help.  Her mom is right there and could easily say “no, stay here” or “let me keep you company” or make lunch herself, but mom seems fine with it so he takes her with him and then they are alone in the kitchen.  

Honestly, it feels like he is doing things that have been modeled for him by older cousins, or that we have specifically given him feedback are kind, and it seems unfair to now reframe it as “going off by yourselves”.  They are never in a space where someone couldn’t walk in.  But they are sometimes in spaces where there aren’t other people.

Keep in mind that they were together 40-50 hours a week for most of a year.  I don’t think most groups of 5 kids would constantly stay in a large group for that amount of time.  They’d play in various groupings. 

None of that is weird. Mixed ages Montessori sees this happen. Various personalities click more than similar ages.  Also, I’ve noticed especially in boys, they will tend to have rescue/protect personalities that lead them to take younger children under their wing.  This is encouraged in girls as being “mother hens” but not in boys because humans are stupid.

[Spryte]

The more I read, the more it’s clear that this isn’t about your DS or her DD at all. This is about SIL and her issues. I’m sorry that everyone else is losing out because of her issues.

What does your DH, FIL, GFIL think? Are they aware of this issue at all, or is it all on you? There’s another SIL, too? I think maybe I’d want them all working with us on this.

I think I might want other people involved in the handling of it, it seems like whatever you do is going to backfire somehow.

 

[ktgrok]

11 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

That isn't an option.   They're choosing to play with each other at family gatherings where there are no other 7 year olds, or teenagers.  They started playing together during a pandemic when neither of them was seeing any kids outside of the family for a year.  

Sometimes the 7 year old wants a break from always playing with her 9 year old sister.  Sometimes the 14 year old wants a break from always playing with his brother and the 11 year old.  So, they spend time together.  

 

 

Yes. Sure it might be a bit strange if there was an entire group of kids your son's own age and he was purposely choosing to play with the seven-year-old instead of any of them. But that's not the case. He has a limited number of people to hang out with, none of whom are his age. 

11 hours ago, SKL said:

 

ETA I also agree that "weird" may just mean something like "is 14yo really immature or something?"

Which in itself would be considered an offensive thing to say.

41 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

As someone who gets comments about my 19-27 year old boys buying car seats for their cars so they can pick up their youngest baby sister for play dates - I can say I am highly offended when people say it’s weird. It’s not weird. It’s family members making a concerted effort to stay connected and involved with people they love. And yes even male family members feel a need to do that if the family dynamics are such that encourage that. No one has ever said a thing about my grown daughter doing the exact same thing.

They may not mean weird as in sexual but they sure don’t mean weird as in what a mature young manly man either.

My response is to call them on it. “What, exactly, are you saying about my son?”

Crap like this is why men are so unlikely to chose jobs where they would work with minors, especially young children. 

agree

19 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

None of that is weird. Mixed ages Montessori sees this happen. Various personalities click more than similar ages.  Also, I’ve noticed especially in boys, they will tend to have rescue/protect personalities that lead them to take younger children under their wing.  This is encouraged in girls as being “mother hens” but not in boys because humans are stupid.

Again, totally agree. And that last bolded part made me laugh. It's laugh or cry. I mean, would people think it is weird that my 22-year-old helps out his younger siblings? Or maybe only weird if he helps out and hangs out with a younger female sibling? Is it not creepy if it's his brother but it is a little sister? All of this is dumb.

And I'm not being dismissive of abuse. If he was regularly encouraging her to sit on his lap, or to do activities that involves a lot of touching, or seeking her out in situations where no one is around that would be different. If I were sister-in-law and had any concerns I would take action not gossip. And gossiping about a kid is the worst.

[WendyLady]

We lived close to cousins when my son was 11-13 years old. All of his cousins are younger than him and mostly girls. He had so much fun when we got together with them. Our son is our youngest and has only sisters. So being with younger cousins was awesome for him. He was like a superhero. He was faster and stronger and had lots of good ideas of games and adventures. And he was really patient with his younger cousins - their older siblings were constantly irritated by their younger sisters, but my son was around them less often and they weren’t annoying little brothers/sisters to him. 

It’s a different relationship than other family friends with younger kids. I think cousin relationships are really cool. My son was able to hang out with younger kids without it being weird. I could see that he would have been an awesome babysitter when he was a teen, but people just don’t really hire boys to babysit, you know?

My sister said some mean things about my older teenage daughters - commenting on their moodiness, clothes choices, and how “unfun” they were. It hurt at the time, but I can see she just had no understanding of teenagers. She has moody teens who make odd clothing choices and are not interested in super fun family games any more, and it feels like payback.

If she had ever commented about my son being basically the most awesome friend to her younger daughters I would have been angry. I hope I could have confronted her with some grace but with some force to defend my son’s honor. I would have probably also made sure that there was no private playing in the basement or bedrooms. And if she continued being suspicious and rude I would have limited my son’s time with her family to protect him from false accusations. 
 

I haven’t read all the comments. She sounds like someone who needs supervision around other people’s kids. It feels like she enjoys making your life difficult. I hate that for you. 

[fairfarmhand]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

 

Which in itself would be considered an offensive thing to say.

 

 

ABSOLUTELY! I would want to nail down exactly what she was trying to say. If someone is going to be nasty, they should just be overtly nasty so I can say "What a nasty thing to say." instead of passive aggressively making comments that leave me wondering what they are actually intending.

Edited January 24, 2022 by fairfarmhand

[Drama Llama]

5 hours ago, Spryte said:

The more I read, the more it’s clear that this isn’t about your DS or her DD at all. This is about SIL and her issues. I’m sorry that everyone else is losing out because of her issues.

Yes, I think this was about family dynamics, and not about dynamics between those two kids.  But I think the fact that she was willing to go there, when feeling hurt, even (or especially) if she didn't mean it, is concerning.  

5 hours ago, Spryte said:

What does your DH, FIL, GFIL think? Are they aware of this issue at all, or is it all on you? There’s another SIL, too? I think maybe I’d want them all working with us on this.

I think I might want other people involved in the handling of it, it seems like whatever you do is going to backfire somehow.

 

I told DH and he was mad. He wanted to call her, but I suggested he wait and talk in person.  We saw them at DH's older sister's that afternoon, and the two of them argued about it.  I was outside with the kids, and I didn't ask for details, but one thing that was obvious is that her DH had not heard anything.  I would think if she was actually concerned she would have brought it up with him.  He was pretty clear that he has no concerns, and he was not aware of her having any concerns.  

My FIL feels caught with two of his children (DH and SIL) who he loves deeply struggling with mental health.  It's not that he thinks her behavior is OK, but he's not going to turn his back on any of his kids.  So, while he agreed that increasing supervision makes sense, he's coming from a place that's more sadness than anger, and he really wants everyone to get along.  I don't think he thinks she's capable of intentionally hurting DS.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure I feel that way.  

The two of them, DH and FIL sat the boys down and talked about protecting them, and making some changes in supervision.  DH has coached a lot of youth sports, and FIL has coached and also taught a lot of Sunday school, so while they told them about the comment, they framed most of the conversation as "we know you would never hurt your cousins, but we also want them to learn healthy boundaries, and having you demonstrate those boundaries can help them do that."  

My GFIL was not involved.  

[Drama Llama]

5 hours ago, WendyLady said:

She sounds like someone who needs supervision around other people’s kids. 

This isn't really an issue, because my kids are never around her without other adults present.  At this point, that's probably a good policy, but up until this point it's because she never reciprocates invitations.  

[YaelAldrich]

Baseball, I am very glad your husband is able and willing to take this on as family stuff is better handled by the family itself, even if you are super close to them.  I am very very happy that your FIL and DH talked to your kids and gave them as healthy and nurturing talk as they did and taught them they can be part of the solution.  I hope that helps you and your immediate family with this crisis.

[Drama Llama]

Just now, YaelAldrich said:

Baseball, I am very glad your husband is able and willing to take this on as family stuff is better handled by the family itself, even if you are super close to them.  I am very very happy that your FIL and DH talked to your kids and gave them as healthy and nurturing talk as they did and taught them they can be part of the solution.  I hope that helps you and your immediate family with this crisis.

I was also happy that in the moment when she made the comment, her sister was there to hear it, and respond.  DH's other siblings make me feel 100% like family, but this sister does not. 

I was happy that DH was able to do that.  That's a big step for him.  He's trying.  

[ktgrok]

26 minutes ago, YaelAldrich said:

Baseball, I am very glad your husband is able and willing to take this on as family stuff is better handled by the family itself, even if you are super close to them.  I am very very happy that your FIL and DH talked to your kids and gave them as healthy and nurturing talk as they did and taught them they can be part of the solution.  I hope that helps you and your immediate family with this crisis.

Yes - big thing for him!

But mostly, wanted to say wow, your DH and FIL handled this in the best way possible with DS. What a great way to frame it - to set boundaries so she grows up knowing what they look like, etc. 

And I really truly get that family means putting up with stuff you normally wouldn't, because you really do love the family. In general it sounds like a very healthy family overall, and super loving, and I totally get that balance of keeping it that way and still protecting your kids/self/etc. 

[Drama Llama]

33 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Yes - big thing for him!

But mostly, wanted to say wow, your DH and FIL handled this in the best way possible with DS. What a great way to frame it - to set boundaries so she grows up knowing what they look like, etc. 

And I really truly get that family means putting up with stuff you normally wouldn't, because you really do love the family. In general it sounds like a very healthy family overall, and super loving, and I totally get that balance of keeping it that way and still protecting your kids/self/etc. 

Thanks.  I use that framing a lot at work, so it seemed to apply here.  

To be clear, my family has put up a lot from us.  DH's other two siblings and his Dad and Grandfather have been by our side constantly for the past 3.5 years, and we've needed a huge amount of grace and help.  So, while this sister drives me crazy, and I fantasize about her moving to Hawaii, I can't really be surprised when they also stand by her.  

[mathnerd]

I am glad that her statement is out in the open, that your DH and FIL handled this so wonderfully, that your SIL's DH knows what she said - this is the best outcome from this unfortunate situation - SIL now knows that she can not fling wild accusations without proof or with hurtful intent and walk away with no consequences. It felt like she was hurting you by hurting your son and this is what made it worrisome. Your son should be protected and should never be used as a Scapegoat in family dramas.

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Baseballandhockey said:

The two of them, DH and FIL sat the boys down and talked about protecting them, and making some changes in supervision.  DH has coached a lot of youth sports, and FIL has coached and also taught a lot of Sunday school, so while they told them about the comment, they framed most of the conversation as "we know you would never hurt your cousins, but we also want them to learn healthy boundaries, and having you demonstrate those boundaries can help them do that."  

 

Excellent. This is important information for them to have. 

[Catwoman]

I'm glad to hear that everything seems to have worked out! 🙂 

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Yes, I think this was about family dynamics, and not about dynamics between those two kids.  But I think the fact that she was willing to go there, when feeling hurt, even (or especially) if she didn't mean it, is concerning.  

I told DH and he was mad. He wanted to call her, but I suggested he wait and talk in person.  We saw them at DH's older sister's that afternoon, and the two of them argued about it.  I was outside with the kids, and I didn't ask for details, but one thing that was obvious is that her DH had not heard anything.  I would think if she was actually concerned she would have brought it up with him.  He was pretty clear that he has no concerns, and he was not aware of her having any concerns.  

My FIL feels caught with two of his children (DH and SIL) who he loves deeply struggling with mental health.  It's not that he thinks her behavior is OK, but he's not going to turn his back on any of his kids.  So, while he agreed that increasing supervision makes sense, he's coming from a place that's more sadness than anger, and he really wants everyone to get along.  I don't think he thinks she's capable of intentionally hurting DS.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure I feel that way.  

The two of them, DH and FIL sat the boys down and talked about protecting them, and making some changes in supervision.  DH has coached a lot of youth sports, and FIL has coached and also taught a lot of Sunday school, so while they told them about the comment, they framed most of the conversation as "we know you would never hurt your cousins, but we also want them to learn healthy boundaries, and having you demonstrate those boundaries can help them do that."  

My GFIL was not involved.  

Wow, it sounds like your dh's mental health is greatly improved! I am so happy to hear that he was capable of handling all of this with his family, and that you didn't have to do it. 

[Harriet Vane]

I have to say I am so impressed with how your family has handled this. I am sure this was hard on all of you! But it sounds like everyone stepped in supportively and appropriately. 

[HS Mom in NC]

I do feel bad for parents of boys and boys on this one.  It's really tough that a statistically small number of boys/men ruin it for all boys/men.  I'm glad the men folk involved were able to handle it with him with some understanding and savvy.

I also feel bad for your husband.  He's already going through a slow hell along with the rest of you and now he and the rest of you have this is added on top of it.  It's just so incredibly unfair. And it sucks for mentally unstable SIL-my oldest is mentally ill and I hate hate hate hate what mental illness and its ripple effect do to people.

[DreamerGirl]

I am glad both DH and FIL are on board and handled it. Very glad about DH. 

I feel for FIL but it is what it is. It is not of his own doing. But you cannot pretend to have a big, happy extended family when it comes at a cost for your own kids. Boundaries are good.

Still it is a loss in bonds between cousins and what could have been. But words have consequences and boundaries are wonderful to protect our children from those who would seek to hurt them.

You have a wonderfully supportive family for the most part and that is enough. 

You are walking through one of the hardest things that a person especially a parent could ever walk and you do so with so much grace and strength. 

[katilac]

57 minutes ago, DreamerGirl said:

 Still it is a loss in bonds between cousins and what could have been.  

Having a change in supervision doesn't have to mean they aren't as close. They can still spend just as much time together, and, if the adults are matter-of-fact about it, the kids will be as well. 

[Drama Llama]

6 minutes ago, katilac said:

Having a change in supervision doesn't have to mean they aren't as close. They can still spend just as much time together, and, if the adults are matter-of-fact about it, the kids will be as well. 

It will mean a huge change in the amount of time the kids are together because they will be dependent on an adult being free to supervise.  

 

[katilac]

5 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

It will mean a huge change in the amount of time the kids are together because they will be dependent on an adult being free to supervise.  

 

But won't it mostly be evenings and weekends now anyway? Bc they're in school? 

[Drama Llama]

12 minutes ago, katilac said:

But won't it mostly be evenings and weekends now anyway? Bc they're in school? 

Yes, but weekends and days off school add up to a lot of days.

It's realistic for me to have the 5 kids here for a weekend day if I can send them outside or to the playroom to play, and still get laundry done, and do some cooking, and catch up on work.  It's not realistic for me to have them here if I have to stay in the room with them.  

Similarly, my older SIL often takes all 5 kids when there's a day off school but adults need to work.  It's not fair of me to ask her to take them if she can't get anything else done.  

My youngest and her oldest are facetiming and watching a hockey game right now, and they're talking about skiing.  But realistically, I don't think I can manage taking them skiing if they can't go off by themselves.  I don't have the stamina to keep up all day.  

 

[bolt.]

2 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Yes, but weekends and days off school add up to a lot of days.

It's realistic for me to have the 5 kids here for a weekend day if I can send them outside or to the playroom to play, and still get laundry done, and do some cooking, and catch up on work.  It's not realistic for me to have them here if I have to stay in the room with them.  

Similarly, my older SIL often takes all 5 kids when there's a day off school but adults need to work.  It's not fair of me to ask her to take them if she can't get anything else done.  

My youngest and her oldest are facetiming and watching a hockey game right now, and they're talking about skiing.  But realistically, I don't think I can manage taking them skiing if they can't go off by themselves.  I don't have the stamina to keep up all day.  

 

Maybe you will get into problem solving a little more as you get used to the situation, but I think maybe things can be worked out. They basically only have to be fully supervised when it's a pairing of an older boy with a younger girl, right?

So they could still go off and play in other configurations: larger groups maybe? And also various pairs or trios that only involve similar age or same-gender groupings?

For example, if, during a day, some younger kids went to the playroom and the older one(s) had some time on their own in another room: that might solve the issue for having a part of the day where the extra supervision isn't needed.

Similarly skiing, they could all go off (as a group) without you as long as they stick together and don't subdivide -- maybe?

It's worth crossing those bridges when you come to them.

[Drama Llama]

7 minutes ago, bolt. said:

Maybe you will get into problem solving a little more as you get used to the situation, but I think maybe things can be worked out. They basically only have to be fully supervised when it's a pairing of an older boy with a younger girl, right?

So they could still go off and play in other configurations: larger groups maybe? And also various pairs or trios that only involve similar age or same-gender groupings?

For example, if, during a day, some younger kids went to the playroom and the older one(s) had some time on their own in another room: that might solve the issue for having a part of the day where the extra supervision isn't needed.

Similarly skiing, they could all go off (as a group) without you as long as they stick together and don't subdivide -- maybe?

It's worth crossing those bridges when you come to them.

All of my kids are boys, and all of hers are girls, and my youngest is older than her oldest. So, there isn't any play between cousins that doesn't involve an older boy and a younger girl.  And I'm not willing to say that one kid can play with cousins and one can't, so the rule is going to be the same for both my kids.  

If playing in the backyard with adults in and out of the house, and looking out the window, and other kids around isn't enough "supervision", then me sitting in my car doing paperwork for work while they're off on a mountain skiing isn't.  

And yes, if there was an emergency, of course I'd say, send them here and we'll just make it work.  But having them here, and keeping them in separate rooms, might solve the problem of her wanting her kids taken care of, but that's not my problem to solve.  

[katilac]

 

18 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Yes, but weekends and days off school add up to a lot of days.

It's realistic for me to have the 5 kids here for a weekend day if I can send them outside or to the playroom to play, and still get laundry done, and do some cooking, and catch up on work.  It's not realistic for me to have them here if I have to stay in the room with them.  

Similarly, my older SIL often takes all 5 kids when there's a day off school but adults need to work.  It's not fair of me to ask her to take them if she can't get anything else done.  

My youngest and her oldest are facetiming and watching a hockey game right now, and they're talking about skiing.  But realistically, I don't think I can manage taking them skiing if they can't go off by themselves.  I don't have the stamina to keep up all day.  

 

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. 

[Drama Llama]

3 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?

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.  

3 minutes ago, katilac said:

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. 

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.  

3 minutes ago, katilac said:

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. 

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.  

[katilac]

10 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

All of my kids are boys, and all of hers are girls, and my youngest is older than her oldest. So, there isn't any play between cousins that doesn't involve an older boy and a younger girl.  And I'm not willing to say that one kid can play with cousins and one can't, so the rule is going to be the same for both my kids.  

If playing in the backyard with adults in and out of the house, and looking out the window, and other kids around isn't enough "supervision", then me sitting in my car doing paperwork for work while they're off on a mountain skiing isn't.  

And yes, if there was an emergency, of course I'd say, send them here and we'll just make it work.  But having them here, and keeping them in separate rooms, might solve the problem of her wanting her kids taken care of, but that's not my problem to solve.  

But your youngest and her oldest are both 11, right? Nobody thinks of that as an older boy, younger girl situation. I think you're fixating on some irrelevant details here. 

Whoa, they really do just go off on the mountain by themselves? I wouldn't have thought the ski lodges would allow that! You can't even drop kids under 13 off at the trampoline park around here. 

I'm confused. Again. I thought the issue was 2 kids being alone, and that the boys were told this wasn't going to happen anymore because of boundaries and so forth. All 5 together outside, with non-constant but regular adult eyes on them, seems perfectly fine. All 5 together inside might not work in the playroom, depending on setup. but there are places they can set up games and so forth. And sometimes an adult will be available, so things can be done in different ways as well. 

I would also expect that, being in school and some activities, all of them are going to be playing with other kids more often. At least when the weather improves! 

So, I don't think some of us are understanding exactly what was decided, so it's hard to give life tips, as it were. What is the rule? 

 

 

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

But your youngest and her oldest are both 11, right? Nobody thinks of that as an older boy, younger girl situation. I think you're fixating on some irrelevant details here. 

I'm not willing to come up with a set up that implies that one of my kids is trustworthy and one isn't.  If the rule is that one can't be with their cousins alone, then the other can't be.

I'll also say that this almost certainly originated because my 11 year old niece gets jealous when my son plays with her sisters.   So, I'm also not going to set up a dynamic where she can play with them and the other girls can't.  

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

Whoa, they really do just go off on the mountain by themselves? I wouldn't have thought the ski lodges would allow that! You can't even drop kids under 13 off at the trampoline park around here. 

Yeah, lots of kids ski better than their parents, so they are off in different directions. Or they ride a bus up from their school.  

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

I'm confused. Again. I thought the issue was 2 kids being alone, and that the boys were told this wasn't going to happen anymore because of boundaries and so forth. All 5 together outside, with non-constant but regular adult eyes on them, seems perfectly fine. All 5 together inside might not work in the playroom, depending on setup. but there are places they can set up games and so forth. And sometimes an adult will be available, so things can be done in different ways as well. 

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.

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

I would also expect that, being in school and some activities, all of them are going to be playing with other kids more often. At least when the weather improves! 

So, I don't think some of us are understanding exactly what was decided, so it's hard to give life tips, as it were. What is the rule? 

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.  

[Melissa Louise]

Unless more came out in the dh/SIL discussion, I personally would not have described 'weird' as 'a serious allegation'.

It was a nasty, passive aggressive way to say 'isn't 14 yr old a bit immature to like playing with younger kids?'

Anyway. Hope it all works out ok. I think I'd be suggesting that dh, SIL and FIL work out their drama triangle between them, and just leave you and the kids out of it, but YMMV.