agonyaunt | (no subject)

(no subject)

Dear Prudence,

I’m struggling with what to tell my parents when they pester me about why my husband and I don’t bring our two young kids (3 and 5) to visit them more than once or twice a year. We all used to live in the same metro area, but a few months before our first child was born, my parents moved into a luxury full-service retirement facility almost four hours away. It’s so expensive we’ll be lucky if they leave enough to cremate them. And far from enjoying themselves, they do nothing but complain about the demanding and bigoted old rich folks who populate the place.

They accuse me of loving my in-laws more than them. I wouldn’t say that—but my in-laws did help us buy a lovely house with a separate suite, which they moved into when our first child was an infant, to save us the cost of a nanny. They spend quality time with our kids every day and seem genuinely interested in them as individuals. Their plan is to spend only what they need to and leave most of their money to us. (My husband is their only living child; his sister died tragically young.) This may be partly a cultural difference since I’m white and my husband is Chinese American. But we’ve already mutually decided that this is exactly how we want to behave toward our grown children and grandchildren (assuming, of course, that it doesn’t conflict with their wishes).

In contrast, it feels like my parents have decided to prioritize themselves and not invest in future generations, and that this is a continuation of a lifelong pattern. They had six kids seemingly just because they liked babies, losing interest in each of us as we grew old enough to speak our minds. They didn’t help me or my siblings with college; we had to either go into blue-collar work or wait until our mid-20s when we could qualify for loans independently, thus getting a late start in our careers. They didn’t contribute to our homes, weddings, or emergency expenses. Of all six of us, I’m the only one who even has kids, and only because I married someone better off.

So now them wanting to see my kids all the time feels like wanting to have their cake and eat it. Should I communicate this to them? Or keep my petty bitterness to myself and continue to make excuses about the long drive, even as the kids get older and less exhausting to wrangle?

—Disenchanted Daughter

Wait a minute. Why is there so much discussion of money and inheritance in a question about grandparents wanting to see their grandkids? Your children are not for sale. At least they shouldn’t be. Put yourself in their shoes: Does the amount of money your parents contributed to your college education have anything to do with how much your kids would benefit from a relationship with them? Are you really thinking of denying them this special bond because your mom and dad didn’t contribute to your real estate goals? Sorry, but that’s messed up.

Don’t get me wrong—what your in-laws have done by helping to create a situation in which they can be in your kids’ life every day is amazing, and it makes sense that you’re grateful. It also makes sense that the reward for this arrangement is lots of time and closeness with the little ones. It’s fine to tell your parents that the logical consequence of their choice to move hours away is that they aren’t going to have as many visits. But your explanation should be about the wrangling of the kids and the exhausting drive, not what they’ve chosen to do with their bank accounts.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But your explanation should be about the wrangling of the kids and the exhausting drive, not what they’ve chosen to do with their bank accounts.

LW's letter wasn't about their bank accounts! LW's letter is about the fact that the parents who "lost interest" in the children by the time they entered school are just not people she wants to spend time with, and she used the total lack of financial support - even for things our society expects parents to help out with, like college tuition - as a clear example, one which is both more direct and also probably less painful than all the stuff that happened before college.

And you know what? Unless the parents are unable to travel, they can make the four hour drive to see the grandkids. They choose not to do that, just like they chose not to help their children as young adults. And that's fine, that's their right! If these are their priorities, and it seems that they are, then they're making the right choice with the retirement facility and all that. But LW is right - they're blaming her for something they could at least meet her halfway on.

Word.

LW is 100% right that they don't need to travel to see the grandparents, no question. But LW is also a griping, selfish, person who is angry that the parents are retiring instead of becoming live-in babysitters, so my sympathy is limited.

Unless LW is financially strained now and relying on an inheritance for important things, this letter is from someone who is angry that their parents -- who raised six kids! regardless of whether they raised them well, that's exhausting -- are now deciding to do something that's not about kids.

LW doesn't clarify anything about the parents finances when LW was a kid, so it's not clear they could have helped with college. And I don't know where LW falls in the birth order, but speaking as a third -- when kids from larger families interact with kids from smaller ones, even before the cultural differences, it raises comparisons of helicoptering vs. neglect. I went hungry at lunch for all of elementary school, not because of abuse or neglect, but because my working parents had three kids and didn't have the energy to make sure the little one packed a brown bag. It happens.

LW sounds more frustrated than anything else, tbh
Yes that frustration is expressed as financial support, and yes that can end up sounding ugly, but the parents created this situation by complaining that the LW with their YOUNG KIDS was favouring the more helpful and supportive in-laws.

Like: no shit sherlock, of course the inlaws who are there emotionally, physically, and financially are going to be a bigger presence in the LW ‘s life than the parents who want the LW to drag their kids on a road trip 4 hours each way to see them.

Frankly in this circumstance 1-2 visits a year is fucking generous.

Edited 2022-09-15 21:10 (UTC)

Nobody in their right mind loads a three-year-old and a five-year-old in the car for a four-hour drive, an adult visit with no playground, and a four hour drive back home.

I dunno. I just made the face that people make at me when I tell jokes about how often my parents beat me in my childhood. I think Wee Jade should have had lunches. One day you're going to get a new memory of a plump lady leaning out of a blue British telephone box to toss you a sack lunch when you were 8. :)

Yeah.

omg ny I just got a little weepy. also because that means you get to time travel.

hugs you a lot I think 13 would totally spot me a ride. :)

This

I'm seeing the money issue as something concrete that the LW can explain without getting into a lot of emotional pain that people might want to debate them about -- whereas the emotional and financial neglect in childhood. *The LW says it's a lifelong pattern.*

This isn't solely about the money.

"They accuse me of loving my in-laws more than them."

The parents are engaging in emotional blackmail, to start with. And they have a history.

They want the LW and their husband to bring the kids TO THEM. The parents are not exactly coming off smelling like roses, frankly.

"Mom, dad, our lives our busy. Having two young children means any trip has to be planned well in advance, and inevitably has to be balanced against other conflicting activities. I'd love to visit you more, but we also have to think about what kind of activities are going to be best for the whole family - you live in a place where there isn't much to interest a young child aside from your company. Sometimes when we take trips we want to go to the beach, or to a museum, and as they get older they'll be wanting to spend time with friends, and they're also getting involved with school and clubs and things - I'm sure you remember what it was like. So, unfortunately, sometimes the balancing means that we can't make that extended weekend trip to see you, but if you'd like, we can definitely look for places for you to stay near us if you'd like to visit, or see if there's something interesting we could all do together partway between - I'm sure the kids would love it if you showed them around Jackalope Mountain Wildlife Preserve and then we all went for ice cream afterwards."

Their response to a perfectly reasonable compromise will tell you everything you need to know, and money doesn't have to enter into the discussion at all, Prudie.

I wonder if this letter is by the LW; I kind of wonder if it's by the husband.

Also, as far as the money: LW is angry their parents are retiring now, and angry they felt financially neglected as kids. Did the parents have money when they were kids? Retirement communities cost a fortune; did they come into money later?

Did the parents have money when they were kids?

If the parents didn't have money then they could still have helped their kids apply for FAFSA. The fact that the kids had to wait until they were "independently able to qualify for loans" suggests to me that the parents didn't even do the very bare minimum - signing paperwork confirming that they would not be able to chip in for their kids to go to college.

I don't think this is about money at all. I think this is about a whole lot of stuff, most of which is hard to describe succinctly, and LW only went with the money example because people at least understand it in a way that they don't understand that more nebulous stuff.

it's possible, but LW really dwells on the money issue, in a way that seems pretty repugnant to me. My mother and I have been having endless conversations where she talks about making sure she saves some money for me and every time I tell her to spend it all, for goodness' sake, it's hers.

Also, not every cultural group in America values college and devalues blue collar work (some of which can be financially much more stable than some degree-requiring jobs). That's one of the reasons I wonder if the letter came from the husband -- it almost seems like that's an outsider looking at a different kind of family (large, blue collar, non-college) and just seeing neglect.

it's possible, but LW really dwells on the money issue, in a way that seems pretty repugnant to me.

Not signing paperwork saying "Can't pay, won't pay" seems pretty repugnant to me. It's a signature, not a pound of flesh.

LW also implicitly states that her parents don't appear to be interested in her kids as actual people. I'd really like to know what she means by that, exactly, but as it's one of the first thing she says I kinda think it's one of the more important things.

Agreed. They lost interest when the kids were old enough to speak their minds, according to this letter. That's pretty independently damning, and so is not helping with FAFSA.

If LW is obsessed with the money angle now, that would not be all that out there in someone who experienced the trouble she describes in struggling to go to college. People who have experienced insecurity often compulsively fixate on or hoard the resource that was insecure in their formative years.

I have a parent who also lost interest in kids once they were old enough to talk back/have opinions/not be at his beck and call.

It's a pretty horrible experience and also is absolutely not mistakeable for anything else.

Some people have children because what they really want is to impose their will on other people.

Some people have children because what they really want is to impose their will on other people.

+1000

I haven't had to deal with FAFSA yet. Are we talking a really simple one-page form saying "I can't pay for my kids, here's my SSN so you can verify for yourself, signature", or are we talking pulling together years of tax returns and bank statements and other financial data? If it's the latter, I can absolutely see exhausted parents who don't see the value of college not wanting to expend the effort.

Which doesn't invalidate the other things LW says that indicate a general pattern of parental neglect once the kid is no longer an adorable baby. And if LW's parents want to see their grandkids, they should be making at least as much effort as LW is.

The part with the parental information isn't that involved - one year of tax information from the tax return.

Yeah, I'm an exhausted, disabled, ADHD parent, but I still made sure my daughter wasn't screwed for FAFSA.

Parental refusal to fill out the forms, OTOH, pretty much locks teenagers and young adults out of access to financial aid for college.

Yeah, like, there are workarounds for people who are estranged from their abusive parents, and in theory colleges have people who know how to help you fill out that enormous amount of paperwork - but in practice, lots of them don't really because the people who need that help don't even know it exists or that this is an option.

Just on a note: financial aid institutions often have very different ideas as to what "can't pay" means, and don't often care about "won't pay." It can take a while for a young adult to be considered "independent" enough for their income and their income only to be the primary factor in getting financial aid. That said, I very much suspect the parents also weren't rushing to stop declaring the kids as dependents on their own taxes.

My first gut thought.. LWs parents only like little ones. And they feel deprived of time with the 3 & 5 yr old. What I see is the LW who likely feels abandoned by their parents growing up now feeling like they have to give their parents the babies they so enjoy.. knowing that those babies will grow up and their parents will become less interested in spending any time and abandoning them. To me it looks like the LW is trying to spare their kids some heartbreak as well as themselves. (also LW your parents didn't invest in YOU while you actually were growing up under their roof. I can see how you feel they don't want to invest in your kids either.)

And on the other hand they have real interactive grandparents who want to do all the daily stuff AS WELL AS the fun stuff. Actual real help and not the "ooooh babies gimme" that LW's parents seem to want.

And yes there is money involved and that also adds a layer. But if you can separate the money issue and the abandonment issue.. what you have are grandparents that want more interaction but have a history of neglect. If I were LW I would inform them that they can arrange to come see the kids and recommend a hotel or airBnB nearby and if they come, they come. If they start being more than just people who enjoy babies and actually enjoy being with your little people than I would maybe consider making plans with them that involve plans you already have. Say a family vacation and they can also come (and pay their own hotel etc).

But if they prove to be the kind of parents you remember.. and stop paying attention to your kids as they grow older.. I would be fine cutting them out of my life. I find people who love babies and only babies and who ignore the older kids have their own problems and I tend to not want to deal with that.

There’s a big cultural divide here too. I’m white but grew up in Asia and everyone else in my immediate family is Asian plus a lot of extended family. Filial piety is expected but it definitely is meant to be mutual. Neglectful parents who are self reliant in retirement are better than neglectful parents who want to also live off you in retirement, but those parents would get talked about hard for living so far from their children and not helping them financially if they have the resources.

I think the in-laws are also receiving care from the LW, that it’s not a one way street either. They likely expect to grow old with the help of their family, and they’ve put in the resources of time and money to do that.

It’s definitely a choice, but it’s a choice with consequences- you live four hours away and didn’t build a relationship with me as a kid, young adult or now and you want access to my kids when it suits you? Tough. These are what we’d call holiday relatives - you see them at the big events only.

Uhhhh...

Sorry, but parenting to me includes caring about the financial/physical state of one's children, not just "I gave birth to them, didn't abuse them (by our society's definition of abuse), clothed, fed, and put a roof over their heads".

Granted, I am firmly on the husband/in-laws' side of things: this is how my parents ("the parentals") operate when it comes to their (so far, sole) grandchild...and, tbh, that is after helping their kids, and buying themselves into a retirement community (which, yes, they bitch about a lot). That said, they will travel a couple of hours to spend the day with said grandkid, helping out, entertaining, looking after, and are glad to do so for the pleasure of knowing their grandkid better.

Soooo I have absolutely no patience for LW's parents who are sitting on their butts waiting for their grandkids to be delivered to them before handing them back at the end of the day.

Question, because I can never keep up with these sorts of advice places; does Pru usually give "well, they're your parents" advice? Like blood relatives are a sacred thing that should always be respected and endorsed?

Edited 2022-09-15 23:38 (UTC)

I found this really interesting.

We have similar cultural differences between my parents and my in-laws. Honestly I can see the pros and cons of each - I find my in laws a little cold at times, they have lots of money, live abroad and prioritise their own comfort over spending money to travel to see us and my brother in law's family. My grandparents also lived in the US and would pay for me to fly over to see them from the UK anytime I wanted to go, they could afford it but they would have prioritised it above almost anything else.

On the other hand, I love that my in laws also don't expect us to care for them in their old age, they would like us to go and visit more often but they have no interest in living with us and expecting us to do day to day stuff for them.

It's complicated and I think there are trade offs

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only