AITA for not letting my in-laws into our home because that’s what BIL wanted?
Jason’s life was shattered in an instant—once a vibrant 18-year-old, now confined to a wheelchair with limited hand mobility after a devastating accident.
His family, overwhelmed by the relentless demands of his care, found themselves drowning in exhaustion and emotional strain, unable to shoulder the weight of his new reality.
When Jason moved in with his brother-in-law and wife, it wasn’t just a change of residence—it was a lifeline.
Though their relationship with his parents fractured under the strain, their home became a sanctuary where Jason could begin to heal, surrounded by love and the promise of unwavering support.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Get the latest stories delivered to your inbox.
The original poster (OP) acted decisively to enforce his brother-in-law's (Jason's) boundary regarding contact with his parents, stemming from their previous abandonment following Jason's accident.
This action created a major conflict with the OP's wife, who prioritizes family reconciliation, even if it means overriding Jason's current stated wishes based on his emotional state.
Is the OP correct to prioritize Jason's explicit wish to refuse contact with his parents, even against his wife's belief that reconciliation is necessary for Jason's long-term emotional health, or was the OP wrong to physically bar the in-laws from the home when they showed up?
The Comments Section Came Alive:
The crowd poured into the comments, bringing a blend of heated opinions, solid advice, and a few reality checks along the way.