agonyaunt | (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

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. :)