"I understand why you want to protect Dolores—she's been wonderful to you, especially given your difficult relationship with your own mother. But your husband has a point about being put in an impossible position. Here's the thing: Dolores has been married to Paul through decades of gambling problems. She knows about his addiction and chose to stay. You can't rescue someone from a marriage they're actively choosing to remain in—she's an adult who's made her own decisions about her life partner."
"My mother-in-law "Dolores" is a lovely person whom I adore, especially since my own mom is horrible and I'm estranged from her. Last week, my husband and I learned that my father-in-law "Paul" blew their house payment money on gambling. Paul has had a gambling addiction for the duration of their marriage. He's put my husband's family in some tight spots before, but never anything is serious."
A couple discovered the father-in-law spent their house payment on gambling. The daughter-in-law offered to take the mother-in-law into their home but exclude the gambling husband. The husband objected, saying that demand would force him to choose between his parents. The response notes the mother-in-law knowingly stayed in a decades-long marriage despite the partner's addiction and cannot be rescued from that choice. Housing only one spouse is likely impractical, risks creating an agonizing choice for the mother-in-law, and would leave the addicted spouse without a place to go. Families must weigh autonomy, consequences, and practical outcomes.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]