Dear Abby: In-laws?

[cereta]

DEAR ABBY: I have been married to my husband for a year. We dated for four years before the wedding, and we have a son together. The child and I have never met any of my husband's immediate family. I have never spoken to any of them over the phone, either.

He has met all of my family members. I have asked repeatedly to meet his, and he tells me he's planning a family trip to visit. He seemed annoyed when I brought it up. What should I do? -- LEFT OUT IN FLORIDA

DEAR LEFT OUT: That you have had no contact with these people in the five years you've been in the picture is, frankly, beyond strange. It appears there may be some things your husband hasn't told you. He may be ashamed of his family, on the outs with them, or they were never told about his involvement with you and/or the existence of their grandchild.

Because you have now been a member of their family for a year, pick up the phone, call your in-laws and introduce yourself.

Comments

[cereta]

I would be very interested in some other details of the LW marriage. Is the husband gone for periods of time longer than 24 hours with any regularity? Because perhaps I have seen too many Lifetime movies, but my first thought is that he's either hiding something from the LW that the family would give away, or he's hiding his wife and child from his family for some reason. And my first thought after that would be that he's either still married to someone else, or has a child he's never told the LW about, perhaps even one being raised by his parents.

But then, I watch a lot of TV. I know that people can be and are estranged from their families of origin, but the fact that he won't explain makes me suspicious. I suppose people do pull Dan Fieldings (I'm sure there are other, more current, examples), but it just seems like there must be something more for him to keep everything so hush-hush. The letter doesn't say what the the LW knows about the family, but the whole thing just stinks.

[rymenhild]

Yeah, that would have been my guess. Or else he turns into a werewolf once a week.

[azurelunatic]

Definitely odd, and I would not guess that the root cause of the schism is a wholesome and natural growing-apart. Something definitely seems like it needs more explanation, and perhaps a "look, I intend to know them unless there is a really good reason why I should not!" conversation.

[sara]

Yeah, I thought biiiiiigamy! myself.

[recessional]

Yeeeeah, the fact that it's not explained is weird. Most people I know who have no contact with their blood-kin are pretty ready to SAY that (which is fair enough: I know people who are very emphatic that their parents will never so much as see their children, for one reason or another). But not explaining is weird, and I' definitely push about it.

[ellen_fremedon]

Maybe the most perplexing part of the letter is that Abby thinks the telephone is the right medium for an introduction here.

[redbird]

Maybe she thinks that's the one hardest to ignore: spam filters may block email from people the recipient doesn't already know, and a lot of people will toss even physical mail if they don't recognize the return address.

Though I suspect a return address of "Mrs. Husband's Name, Their Address" would get the envelope opened.

[recessional]

*tilts head* What would you use instead? Given that it's obvious the husband is not going to introduce.

[ellen_fremedon]

Any text medium? I don't know, I just have a strong sense that the phone is neither a suitable nor an appropriate medium for introducing oneself. Phone conversations are for people you already know.

[recessional]

Huh, I do not have that sense of phone conversations, at all. Interesting.

[ellen_fremedon]

Introductions by phone are sometimes unavoidable in a business context, though I find it really rude to call when you could have emailed, or to call without emailing to set it up unless it's a really time-sensitive issue. But outside of work, I have to know people really well to be willing to talk to them on the phone-- actually talk, not just hash out logistics. I find it really stressful to lose the channels you have in face-to-face speech, without the compensation of a persistent record of the interaction that you have in a text medium.

Maybe it's just me, but if I got an unexpected phone call from an in-law I'd never met and I might not have known I had, I would take it as a bullying tactic, and assume that they had reasons for not wanting a record of the conversation, and for not wanting to give me time to prepare.

[recessional]

Again, interesting: I wouldn't assume that at all. I'd just assume that phone-numbers are the easiest reliable form of communication to get, and the one where you know quickest whether you're just being ignored/stonewalled, or if you have the wrong contact information. Letters and emails sent to the wrong person often just disappear into the void, never to find out whether or not the recipient saw them and chose not to respond, or if they never got to that recip.

Granted, were I the LW the phone conversation would be "hi, here is the situation, would it be possible for us to meet?"

(And I hate the phone. But sometimes it's a necessary tool.)

[sara]

I think this is a generational thing -- I know that I certainly feel like one may call someone on business, or if one is an intimate, or if it is an emergency, but other calls are basically unacceptable. But at the job I left a couple of months ago, the management (most of whom were retired) felt like I didn't phone people enough, and that when I sent email it could be ignored, because if I were really serious about wanting something to happen I would have called them. Each. Individually.

You will perhaps understand why I no longer work there.

(I don't answer the home phone at all. That's what the machine is for.)

[amadi]

I think telling the letter writer to take it upon herself to call the family is an incredibly wrong-headed response. Foisting this news onto strangers -- related strangers though they may be -- via phone, where they're obligated to give an immediate response, would be incredibly rude, especially when the letter writer has no idea of the reasoning behind the familial split.

Not only could calling up the husband's family (where would she even get a phone number) become potentially traumatic for them, it's potentially traumatic and life-shattering for the letter writer too. This is inherently a marital problem, first and foremost. If the LW's husband won't be honest about this, it's not time to try to create a relationship with his family, it's time to evaluate if she needs to stay in a relationship with him, because he's hiding something that is going to be a big-time issue if they decide to have kids.

[cereta]

Just as a point of order: they already have a kid. Which is, IMHO, part of what makes this so egregious. Not that it wouldn't be bad if they didn't; marriage is a big commitment. But there's a child who might someday have just that experience - having a grandparent or cousin (or worse, a sibling) appear out of the blue. That said, I agree that just calling the family is questionable. As someone who is going to be facing some hard choices along these lines soon (I'll be getting access to my adoption records in the spring), I think there are other things she might try first.

[amadi]

I missed the kid. That makes this even worse. Because the husband's cageyness suggests that someone did something seriously horrible to cause the family to split, and it may well have been him.

[seperis]

I agree with both of you, but in this case--and this sounds dramatic, so bear with me--she's essentially in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position, and he put her in this position.

If it turns out he was abused/traumatic past regarding family, she looks like a nosy bitch and all around horrible person who doesn't trust her husband; if it's him who is the problem (abusive, rapist, other living wife) she looks like an idiot who shouldn't have trusted her husband. If it's just they happen to not be a close family, something internal to the family (my family has a lot of that), or something petty, see point one or possibly nothing at all. Secret option three to bypass all this is divorce him, and again, there's not nearly enough information and we're back to the same potential outcomes.

I think giving him the choice between flat out explaining or asking him to give her their phone number/email address/mailing address so she can introduce herself is fair. If he refuses both explicitly, contact is recommended and maybe required at this point just for her own potential safety and security and that of her child. (I'd go with email or snail mail personally; text medium is your friend for slightly impersonal but perfectly acceptable contact.)