I resent my sister and feel so guilty

londonsurrey

thorsoak wrote: »

Shopaholic and OH will have to be extremely firm and just state that baby will NOT be left with grandparents (and aunt) at any stage. Of course, they can visit - but at no time will baby be left in their care.

I think you're totally right about this.

thorsoak wrote: »

I think that Shopaholic does not have the full picture from her parents - in all probability her sister will have a social/care worker and if this is so (Shopaholic should check this out) it would be helpful for her parents to get input from that person

In theory, I agree with you. But I would be worried about Shopaholic and her baby being brought under social services scrutiny, and would be inclined to simply create an environment where the sister can never be left alone with the baby, so it's never an issue that needs to be queried by social services.

thorsoak

londonsurrey wrote: »

I think you're totally right about this.



In theory, I agree with you. But I would be worried about Shopaholic and her baby being brought under social services scrutiny, and would be inclined to simply create an environment where the sister can never be left alone with the baby, so it's never an issue that needs to be queried by social services.

Oh I quite agree - I wasn't meaning involving a social worker into assimilating baby into sister's life - more warning of the implications of allowing sister unlimited access (or even access "controlled" by her parents).

londonsurrey

I've just thought of a diplomatic way of leaving the baby in the grandparent's sole care - Shopaholic can take her sister out shopping, and leave baby with the grandparents?

Bennifred

londonsurrey wrote: »

I've just thought of a diplomatic way of leaving the baby in the grandparent's sole care - Shopaholic can take her sister out shopping, and leave baby with the grandparents?

Why would you want to leave your baby in the charge of someone who has treated their own children in the way the OP has stated? It doesn't sound as if it is just the sister who is unsuitable to have unsupervised care, if the parents are in such a state of denial over how things are.

londonsurrey

An aspect that is bothering me is the numbers involved, financially. There are many variables, but the parents should be rather comfortably off to be able to assure the sister of a continued existence in the style in which she was brought up.

If you crunch the numbers, taking nursing home fees into account, for the parents and eventually the sister, the capital involved is rather significant. There has been no indication that the sister suffers from any health issues for her to expect anything less than a normal life span, which is currently about four score years and rising.

Anyhow, as this points to them not living in very straightened circumstances, I am very concerned that the father would not entertain Shopaholic being offered even floor space if life ever went wrong for her.

I mean, loss of economic status is definitely not what we would want for our children, but even if I were living in a crowded caravan, and one of my children needed shelter, I would like to think that I'd offer it floor space to kip on. Unless the child were on drugs or suchlike, of course, in which case I'd worry about the interaction with the other children.

londonsurrey

Bennifred wrote: »

Why would you want to leave your baby in the charge of someone who has treated their own children in the way the OP has stated? It doesn't sound as if it is just the sister who is unsuitable to have unsupervised care, if the parents are in such a state of denial over how things are.

Well, I wouldn't. Lol.
But I am aware that not everyone is capable of saying no to their parents, and it does sound as though Shopaholic is still a long way from severing ties with her mum.

Mojisola

londonsurrey wrote: »

There are many variables, but the parents should be rather comfortably off to be able to assure the sister of a continued existence in the style in which she was brought up.

If you crunch the numbers, taking nursing home fees into account, for the parents and eventually the sister, the capital involved is rather significant. There has been no indication that the sister suffers from any health issues for her to expect anything less than a normal life span, which is currently about four score years and rising.

It's very important for children who are going to need care throughout their lives to be able to get some independence from their parents. Although it can seem easier - and better - for Mum and Dad to do all the caring, it doesn't work out so well as they get older.

It's much harder for someone who has been cared for by parents to adjust - in the 40s or 50s - to other carers as the parents become unable to care and/or die. For the sister's sake, the parents should be working towards giving her some independence through other carers.

If they can step back a bit from the sister's care, they may start to see that their other child would appreciate some attention from them.

barbiedoll

Why would Shopaholic's sister need 24 hr "care" when her parents are no longer around? She has apparent mild learning difficulties, she is, however, capable of working (albeit part-time) of having a relationship with a man and of having a social life. She is able to go on holidays and shopping trips, surely she would be able to live independently, maybe with some support, at a later date?

Although, as she managed to blind a pet at 13 years old, and yet even after years of doctors and tests, still hasn't obtained a definite diagnosis of any form of mental impairment, maybe we should consider her not so much mentally deficient as wilful, clever and manipulative? I'm not surprised that OP cringes if her sister touches her stomach, if any of my siblings had inflicted such cruelty onto an animal, I doubt that I could bear to even be in the same room as them, let alone leave them anywhere near my child. The more I read from OP, the more sinister the situation sounds. The sister has managed to ensure that OP has effectively been pushed out of their parent's lives to the extent that she can never go back home and any inheritance has been snatched from her too. No wonder she is resentful, I don't blame her!

aliasojo

barbiedoll wrote: »

.........yet even after years of doctors and tests, still hasn't obtained a definite diagnosis of any form of mental impairment, maybe we should consider her not so much mentally deficient as wilful, clever and manipulative?

It's your assertion that if the Doctors could not label her with something as a firm diagnosis, then perhaps she's simply wilful, clever and manipulative?

Is that really what you are saying?

barbiedoll

Aliasojo: No, no, not at all, I'm well aware that many illnesses are undiagnosed or (more commonly) misdiagnosed, and I know that mental health issues are incredibly complicated and often don't fit into neat categories. It was just a suggestion, OP's sister doesn't seem to have much trouble functioning fairly normally in everyday life. She works, she has relationships, she can communicate with people, she doesn't sound like someone who needs 24hr care every day.

The pet incident troubled me, I know several people who have mental health issues, a friend of mine has a brother who is severely autistic and can be incredibly violent, although he doesn't understand what he is doing. But he will never be able to have a proper job, nor will he ever have a relationship in any meaningful sense. The violence against OP's pet is odd, even if the sister had a mental age of say, 5, how many 5 year olds would use a pair of scissors to blind an animal? (I know you wouldn't leave a small child with scissors and a pet, but you know what I mean). It just sounds like a wilful act, designed to hurt and upset, not something that would be accidental. But even if the sister was completely oblivious to the harm that she caused, I can understand why OP wouldn't forget something like that. And why she uses terms such as "hate" towards her sister.