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

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 would read the thread

OP you have done your very best for your sister as has your husband and family. She may see the errors of her ways in the future but just concentrate on your own family now. I would also not discuss her with your parents, they are obviously going to defend her.
Look after yourself, you’re a great sister!

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.

I would give it back.

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.

Happy to repat myself - YOU are taking it out of of context

Absolutely not, everyone is entitled to their opinion but there's no need deliver it in such an aggressive manner.

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.

Agree. I think the problem is that many posters have misinterpreted the original question. OP wasn’t asking whether she should keep the dog - she’d already decided that, based on what was best for the dog. She was asking whether it was unreasonable for her to do that based on the circumstances in which the dog was placed with them - namely that the sister had agreed to rehome the dog with OP permanently because she was originally leaving for three years.

OP had had the change of ownership registered, the chip details changed, had paid vet fees and all the expenses connected with the dog for the last seven months, so to all intents and purposes the dog was hers. So the question was actually whether the sister was entitled to ask for the dog back, simply because her circumstances had changed and she was back after a few months. What came after, to my mind wasn’t a drip feed, it was a continuous update, based on the questions she was being asked.

I hate drip feeds and just don't see that OP has done that at all. She answered questions as it went on anything from the breed of dog to if the dog had seen them and how it behaved around them plus updates as it happened. It wasn't a drip feed that OP's sister was going through it, many people used that as a reason why she should give the dog back.

OP wasn’t asking whether she should give the dog back though. She was asking whether it was unreasonable not to do so under the circumstances, and with the consideration that she thinks it’s not in the dogs’ best interests. The fact is that her sister agreed to permanently rehome the dog when she left. The fact that her plans didn’t work out doesn’t alter that, and that was the original premise on which the question was asked. What came after was as a result of OP answering questions directly asked of her.

Where did l say that ? I asked you to end the original exchange because it was derailing the thread.

I think that we will have to agree to disagree

The personal dislike displayed by some posters is very clear IMO. Look at some of the responses. OP has variously been selfish, a terrible sister, has no regard for her family and only wants to keep the dog to spite her sister. There have also been various comments about OP’s lack of concern for her sisters’ mental health. None of which has been the case, and all of which has been belied by OP’s subsequent posts.

It sounds very much as though sister does have some mental health issues, and it’s often the case that those with such problems are self centred and so absorbed with their own wants and needs that they have no regard to the chaos they bring to others. OP has clearly been dealing with that chaos - and maybe not for the first time. She appears to have had good judgement as to what is best all round given the circumstances and has steadfastly stuck to her guns.

The fact that she has been proved right in doing so has disgruntled a lot of posters so the criticism continues. My background is in disability support, including mental health, and FWIW I’ve seen enough of the abuse close family members suffer at the hands of those with MH issues to understand that there is a limit to the support that can be given. And it seems to me that some posters wouldn’t have been happy with anything less than OP setting herself on fire to keep her sister warm. There comes a point when support becomes enabling and OP clearly recognised that point. Good for her.

Thank you for your feedback :)

I very rarely comment on here but I have read the thread and did vote OP is not being unreasonable yesterday.

I couldn’t not post regarding this comment from the above post I think there's an extraordinary lack of empathy displayed on mumsnet a lot of the time, and I'd like to be a different voice.

When I read through the thread I thought how horrible this persons posts were, so to hear them say they would like to be a voice of empathy was both shocking and funny. So, just to let you know @Lacksie, you are failing miserably if you are trying to sound empathetic.

I personally do think it was a drip feed. If you look at the OP , it wasn't about the dog or the dogs best interests. There was one line right at the end that reads "I don't think it would be in the dog's best interests anyway" , a quick , final aside, with no further context given.

The post was all about the OP, her family and their feelings about giving up a dog, versus the feelings of the sister and her family.

Then when a minority of people said OP should give the dog back all this stuff came out about how sister doesn't have the capacity to look after a dog, is in a mental health crisis, doesn't care about the dog (or her children!) , the dog doesn't care about her, she's a terrible dog owner etc etc. That's why I question the OP's narrative a bit.

if OP had started with an opening post setting out the situation from the perspective of the dogs care and which home could better meet dogs needs, the responses might have been more unanimous. However , I personally don't think that's what this is really about anyway, otherwise she would have started with that.

Agree. Well summarised.👍

But that's not the case. It's perfectly possible that someone can read all of OP's posts and not come to the same conclusions as you. Nobody here knows the OP, why would personal dislike come into it?

I thought you’d stopped engaging with me 😉

Which is based on the premise that posters read and understand what the OP is actually saying, and follow updates. Instead of which, some posters are making up their own narrative - in some cases very clearly based on a dislike of OP, rather than the facts at hand.

There is a big difference between a drip feed and adding in more information to provide context as the thread progresses. It happens all the time and here OP has provided a lot of information at the request of other posters. That’s why MN have provided a ‘see all’ button, so that posters can read an OP’s updates and have all the relevant information before posting. If OP had attempted to include everything she’s posted here in her opening post, either we’d all still be reading, or posters would be responding with TLDR.

Agree. I’ve been on MN for several years and it amuses me that posters like this don’t realise that they can be seen for what they really are. They couch what is essentially vitriol ever so reasonably and sweetly, and when they’re called out, or, as in this case are proved wrong, they insist that their nastiness came from a place of concern. There are a few posters here eating their words, desperate for the thread to be deleted, and dressing it up as ‘concern’. We see you 👀.

After being tagged and having my mental health and home circumstances questioned, allegedly from that same ‘concern’, am l the only one wondering how a poster who allegedly works in dog rescue is also such a mental health expert that they feel able to diagnose and advise people they’ve never met and don’t know the first thing about ?

I think you’re reaching now. It is called a drip feed. It’s what everyone calls it when more, relevant, information is added after the initial posts. It’s used on every thread on here. Hardly passive aggressive