The original poster’s (OP) boyfriend told her that she should be paying for half of his rent and bills since she spends about half her time at his place. But OP says she never chose to have the boyfriend move to a city where life is far too expensive, and that she should not have to pay anything. Who is in the wrong?
The original poster (OP) and her husband hired a nanny named Marie to care for their kids while they worked. Her children where on hybrid school schedules, so they hired Marie to work full-time. They of course set out some guidelines and expectations, but Marie seemed to have some problems with following them.
The original poster (OP’s) girlfriend has a rich father who always paid for everything. One day, she suggested OP should offer to pay for brunch, knowing that her dad would refuse. But OP laughed in the girlfriend’s face and said he wasn’t interested in offering. At most he would offer to pay for her and himself.
The original poster (OP), the father of two kids, gave his daughter $4000 for Christmas as she just moved into a new home. He gave his son only $800 worth of Christmas presents. The son of OP felt like he was being neglected and voiced his concern, to which the father replied that he was being unreasonable. Is OP in the wrong?
The original poster’s (OP) mother was never responsible with money and had a huge credit card debt. OP’s mom wanted her to use her OnlyFans profits to pay off the debt, but OP refused. OP thought that her mother would never pay her back, seeing as she had a horrible track record with finances. Is OP in the wrong?
The original poster (OP) agreed to pay for gender reveal cupcakes upon receiving them. However, when OP went to get the cupcakes, the baker’s dog jumped up on her and ruined the cupcakes. The baker said that OP should still pay for the cupcakes even though they were no longer useable. Is OP wrong or not?
The original poster (OP) and his wife wanted to go on vacation, and he had asked his mother-in-law to babysit their son for five days while they were gone. She happily agreed, and then last minute, said that she would want $100 per day. OP refused and then asked his own parents to watch, which they happily agreed to, free of cost. Is he wrong for not wanting to pay the MIL any money?
OP had a friend who invited her to a dinner with her future in-laws, but at the last second switched it from her own home to a restaurant. OP could not afford the restaurant, but was guilted into attending anyway. She didn’t order any food, and was then was called an embarrassment for sitting at the restaurant and not eating. She now feels like she might have been wrong.
The original poster (OP), a 41-year-old female with three sons, made it clear that for every day that chores were not done, the $10 of allowance would not be given. One of her sons refused to do chores for three days, and thus ended up with only $20 instead of $50 for the week. The son and his father were extremely upset about this. Is the mother, the OP, in the wrong?