Perspective | Carolyn Hax: They said no to hosting a sick dog, and mother-in-law is 'livid' - The Washington Post
Dear Carolyn: My sister-in-law (“Sally”) recently got a puppy-mill puppy who immediately presented with a host of problems — worms, cough, etc. He’s about 4 months old now and, after spending thousands of dollars in vet bills, is allegedly “fine,” but was so much work that Sally (30s, not attached) moved home for the help. My mother-and father-in-law were scheduled to visit my family — we have four kids under 6 and a dog — next weekend and just informed us that Sally is coming, too, and bringing the puppy and isn’t that great?!
My husband immediately questioned the health of the dog, and it was waved off. I then said I wasn’t comfortable with a dog, still so young, who was so recently so sick — vomiting just two weeks ago — being both near my dog and my very young kids. Not to mention the fact that he isn’t housebroken, chews, bites like all puppies do, and we have a dog that goes absolutely insane around other dogs, getting very rough. My twins are 1 and can’t walk, spending all their time on the floor.
My mother-in-law is livid and says this is because I don't like Sally — which is true, we have a long contentious history — and if the dog can't come, then neither can Sally. She also said the new dog is “part of the family” and I'd better just get used to it.
Am I being unreasonable here? We’ve never allowed guests with dogs. The idea of a hotel was written off, and the dog is too young/sick to be boarded.
That they're howling about this doesn't make their case any stronger; it just adds massive boundary problems to their side of the balance sheet, in addition to the child-endangering recklessness.
There may be plenty for you to own in this “long contentious history” with Sally — your description is leaking some contempt — so watch that. But even if so, you'll need to start the patching-up process some other time and in some other way — one that doesn't put little crawling people at risk.
Re: Puppy: Drawing the line and saying no to the puppy is a task for the husband, right? It’s his family. It sounds like they’re in agreement on this but that Uncomfortable is having to take the lead in dealing with this problem.
Anonymous: Why the husband hasn’t shut them down utterly would be a mystery, except that he’s a product of their (presumably) boundary-challenged home.
Re: Puppy: I’d love to hear, here or in the comments, from the dog people who truly think this is okay. Why do you think it’s acceptable to force your pet on people who have said no? It’s so common.
I JUST DON’T GET IT: I don’t get it either and I am very attached to my dogs. Who, by the way, are getting more handsome right now as I type this.
I keep hearing about people who refuse to take no-dogs for an answer — but I don’t really hear from them. Anyone care to own up? Service dogs excepted, obviously.
From the archive:
More:
Sign up for Carolyn’s email newsletter to get her column delivered to your inbox each morning.
Carolyn has a live chat with readers on Fridays. Read the most recent live chat here. The next chat is Feb. 25.
source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/advice/2022/02/22/carolyn-hax-hosting-sick-dog-mother-in-law/
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.