AIBU to keep my sister’s former dog after she moved back?

I’ve ignored her and I’m considering whether to respond at all. We’ve been well and truly played. My parents are elderly and have been so stressed and not sleeping thinking she was such a bad place and it all been lies. My parents have been in regular contact with her husband to give him updates on the children, at my sisters request. My sister has done that knowing my parents would talk to him about how worried they are about her being so upset. It’s all been lies and game playing to get her own way. It’s unforgivable.

Is that really all you’ve taken away from this thread ?

And if she continues with these demands there’s a very easy answer. All OP needs to do is deduct the money she’s spent on the dog in the last seven months and see what’s left. My guess is not much, if anything.

They’re also saying that as the dog has only been with us for 7 months, we should give him back as it’s not long enough for him to have settled.

And how old is the dog? And what breed? That's completely relevant here.

I disagree with others that after 7 months a dog will be 'secure' in it's new home. I've known dogs that after 5 years still react like puppies when they see their original owners (I rescue, so I see re-homing a lot).

But honestly, regardless, I would show some compassion. She's lost her husband. Her kids have lost a dog. And the dog is their family. There are often very good reasons (as the wife of a diplomat, I have a lot of empathy for your sisters circumstances) why people leave dogs behind i.e if the climate is not suitable for them. It doesn't mean we don't care.

Because the OPs sisters behaviour is erratic and the issue was never the dog but had the OP listened, that poor dog would have been on a piece of elastic, being pinged back and forward.

The sister is in a world of hurt, she does not know what she wants and what is right or wrong. Her own kid didn't know that they had left Dad for good for crying out loud and so only found out when sister decided she was off back....without the dog. She could have taken the dog the first time, and should have if it was oh so important to her and her kids, but she didn't - she dumped it on her sister who didn't want another dog at the time but she took it to help. So its no surprise she has stated the dog can stay. Her behaviour is erratic.

Do you really not see that the sister is in no fit state to take responsibility for another life, she is struggling to cope with her own and that of her kids? I'm saying that out of sympathy for her and the OP has evidenced this throughout and has a far deeper knowledge of her sister than we do. She is quite rightly frustrated by her sisters mixed messages but nonetheless supporting her in her struggles.

She’s now said that as we are ‘now’ keeping the dog, we need to pay what they paid for him when they bought him as a puppy. We were always keeping the dog from when she agreed to sign ownership to us.

We have also heard and seen evidence in text messages that my sister never intended to stay in the UK but wanted to convince her husband she was to get her own way about a bigger property abroad. That fits with what we heard her talking to her husband about when she was here and when he called us to say he was concerned about her, he checked that she had asked for the dog back and kept asking if we thought she was serious. Asking for the dog back was part of convincing him she was serious about staying here to force him into getting a bigger property over there. She has got her way about the property so is going back. We are all disgusted that she would use her children and our dog like that, distressing us and our children in her games. We won’t be having any more contact with her.

She's bonkers! No 4 year old dog is going to have the same financial value now as it did when it was a puppy.

And I hate to say this, but had you handed the dog back he could have been sold by now to the highest bidder.

I hope to God she never gets another dog.

She’s now said that as we are ‘now’ keeping the dog, we need to pay what they paid for him when they bought him as a puppy. We were always keeping the dog from when she agreed to sign ownership to us.

We have also heard and seen evidence in text messages that my sister never intended to stay in the UK but wanted to convince her husband she was to get her own way about a bigger property abroad. That fits with what we heard her talking to her husband about when she was here and when he called us to say he was concerned about her, he checked that she had asked for the dog back and kept asking if we thought she was serious. Asking for the dog back was part of convincing him she was serious about staying here to force him into getting a bigger property over there. She has got her way about the property so is going back. We are all disgusted that she would use her children and our dog like that, distressing us and our children in her games. We won’t be having any more contact with her.

Im confused, where did OP state that her DS was having some sort of mental health crisis? Yes she is going through the mill? Not everyone has a mental breakdown because they are going through a stressful situation.

Could help me make sense of this statement?

I've known dogs that after 5 years still react like puppies when they see their original owners (I rescue, so I see re-homing a lot).

When is a rehomer ever going to witness a dog meet up with its original owner again? Especially after five years?
It's been puzzling me but there may well be a perfectly logical reason that I have missed.

She’s now said that as we are ‘now’ keeping the dog, we need to pay what they paid for him when they bought him as a puppy. We were always keeping the dog from when she agreed to sign ownership to us.

We have also heard and seen evidence in text messages that my sister never intended to stay in the UK but wanted to convince her husband she was to get her own way about a bigger property abroad. That fits with what we heard her talking to her husband about when she was here and when he called us to say he was concerned about her, he checked that she had asked for the dog back and kept asking if we thought she was serious. Asking for the dog back was part of convincing him she was serious about staying here to force him into getting a bigger property over there. She has got her way about the property so is going back. We are all disgusted that she would use her children and our dog like that, distressing us and our children in her games. We won’t be having any more contact with her.

I don't believe there's any context on this thread that justifies such comments.
I'm happy to repeat myself- what do you think OP's sister would think if she came across the thread?

I think the OP was rightfully expressing her concern about her sister and the dogs welfare, and her stance was proved true by the OPs final update.

And yet again I repeat that you are taking her comments out of context, happy to keep repeating it if that is what it takes.,

She’s now said that as we are ‘now’ keeping the dog, we need to pay what they paid for him when they bought him as a puppy. We were always keeping the dog from when she agreed to sign ownership to us.

We have also heard and seen evidence in text messages that my sister never intended to stay in the UK but wanted to convince her husband she was to get her own way about a bigger property abroad. That fits with what we heard her talking to her husband about when she was here and when he called us to say he was concerned about her, he checked that she had asked for the dog back and kept asking if we thought she was serious. Asking for the dog back was part of convincing him she was serious about staying here to force him into getting a bigger property over there. She has got her way about the property so is going back. We are all disgusted that she would use her children and our dog like that, distressing us and our children in her games. We won’t be having any more contact with her.

The sister's husband took a job abroad, we don't know if she wanted to go, but she did. Perhaps it was non negotiable for him. She found it difficult, as it is, to relocate. She came back, which meant being a full single parent and found she couldn't cope. She didn't want her marriage to end, I'm sure her two children didn't and missed their Dad. So she's gone into a MH crisis. To save her marriage, she has to live somewhere she doesn't like and give up her whole life. Plus no-one really knows the inside of a marriage. But fuck all that, the selfish bitch didn't make her bed.

I don't believe there's any context on this thread that justifies such comments.
I'm happy to repeat myself- what do you think OP's sister would think if she came across the thread?