Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Another H. update. Sigh.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Big Bad Kitty" data-source="post: 170323" data-attributes="member: 3647"><p>KLMNO is right. You are definitely showing the strength that you have always had.</p><p></p><p>When my brother-in-law (E) died, (wow, it will be 9 years this October...he died in a truck accident when he was 23, leaving a 1 yr old (D) and a fincee (L) behind) he had no will. He had not been working at his job long enough to get life insurance. D received Social Security from his death.</p><p></p><p>Well, L took that money and bought a house. And moved a new boyfriend in with her. She was 22 at the time, and had not only the one year old but also a 4 year old (R) from a previous relationship. My mother-in-law saw red. She felt that L should have been putting all the social security money away for D for when he grew up instead of using it to live on. She also felt that L was dishonoring E's memory by moving on too quickly to a new guy.</p><p></p><p>I get mother in law's point. I told her that I agreed that in a perfect world, the income from social security should have gone into a savings account for D's future. However, L was barely a kid herself, and when she was with E, she did not work. E was the provider. She stayed home with the kids. Since they were not married, L was not entitled to anything after E's death. She did not have the knowledge on how to be a working single mom. Plus she was still nursing D. So she did what she thought would benefit herself and both of her kids. As far as moving on too quickly, I gave her the benefit of the doubt because of her age. </p><p></p><p>My mother in law became more furious with <em>me</em> than she was with L for trying to explain what I thought was L's point of view. I didn't even agree that I thought what she did was right; I simply gave mother in law my interpretation of what L may be going through. mother in law (who has been crazy as long as I have known her) insisted that nobody could be hurting as badly as she was over E's death, and nobody but her could know what is best for D in his future. She also went nuts when L took all of E's belongings with her during the move, with the intention of later going through them and sorting them out to give something to everyone in the family. mother in law wanted dibs on his stuff and she wanted it immediately. </p><p></p><p>IN the end, mother in law caused so much commotion that she now no longer sees D at all. She also did not see Matt or me for 3 years after E's death. Which meant she did not see Matt's sons for 3 years; she also did not meet Tink until Tink was 2. Also, at one point right after Tink was born, I tried to give L mother in law's point of view, and she became angry with me, and now <strong><em>I</em></strong> don't get to see D either (and he is my only Godson). So now I have both L and mother in law mad at me for trying to get each of them to see the other one's point of view, and now I don't talk to either of them. That's what I get for trying to smooth everything over.</p><p></p><p>What is my point in all this? Heck, I don't even know. All I know is that family deaths often cause friction in families, especially dysfunctional families. And you can see Matt's entire family pictured next to the word <em>dysfunctional</em> in any dictionary. Everyone deals with death a little differently. You have the advantage of having this safe place to come to (complete with a whole other family that loves you) that perhaps A and M don't. Again, not making excuses for their behavior, just pointing out what might be the case.</p><p></p><p>I am so sorry for your continuing hurt over this. </p><p></p><p>H's legacy can and will live on, no matter what happens. </p><p></p><p>XO</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Big Bad Kitty, post: 170323, member: 3647"] KLMNO is right. You are definitely showing the strength that you have always had. When my brother-in-law (E) died, (wow, it will be 9 years this October...he died in a truck accident when he was 23, leaving a 1 yr old (D) and a fincee (L) behind) he had no will. He had not been working at his job long enough to get life insurance. D received Social Security from his death. Well, L took that money and bought a house. And moved a new boyfriend in with her. She was 22 at the time, and had not only the one year old but also a 4 year old (R) from a previous relationship. My mother-in-law saw red. She felt that L should have been putting all the social security money away for D for when he grew up instead of using it to live on. She also felt that L was dishonoring E's memory by moving on too quickly to a new guy. I get mother in law's point. I told her that I agreed that in a perfect world, the income from social security should have gone into a savings account for D's future. However, L was barely a kid herself, and when she was with E, she did not work. E was the provider. She stayed home with the kids. Since they were not married, L was not entitled to anything after E's death. She did not have the knowledge on how to be a working single mom. Plus she was still nursing D. So she did what she thought would benefit herself and both of her kids. As far as moving on too quickly, I gave her the benefit of the doubt because of her age. My mother in law became more furious with [I]me[/I] than she was with L for trying to explain what I thought was L's point of view. I didn't even agree that I thought what she did was right; I simply gave mother in law my interpretation of what L may be going through. mother in law (who has been crazy as long as I have known her) insisted that nobody could be hurting as badly as she was over E's death, and nobody but her could know what is best for D in his future. She also went nuts when L took all of E's belongings with her during the move, with the intention of later going through them and sorting them out to give something to everyone in the family. mother in law wanted dibs on his stuff and she wanted it immediately. IN the end, mother in law caused so much commotion that she now no longer sees D at all. She also did not see Matt or me for 3 years after E's death. Which meant she did not see Matt's sons for 3 years; she also did not meet Tink until Tink was 2. Also, at one point right after Tink was born, I tried to give L mother in law's point of view, and she became angry with me, and now [B][I]I[/I][/B] don't get to see D either (and he is my only Godson). So now I have both L and mother in law mad at me for trying to get each of them to see the other one's point of view, and now I don't talk to either of them. That's what I get for trying to smooth everything over. What is my point in all this? Heck, I don't even know. All I know is that family deaths often cause friction in families, especially dysfunctional families. And you can see Matt's entire family pictured next to the word [I]dysfunctional[/I] in any dictionary. Everyone deals with death a little differently. You have the advantage of having this safe place to come to (complete with a whole other family that loves you) that perhaps A and M don't. Again, not making excuses for their behavior, just pointing out what might be the case. I am so sorry for your continuing hurt over this. H's legacy can and will live on, no matter what happens. XO [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Another H. update. Sigh.
Top