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

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.

I thought you’d stopped engaging with me 😉

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.

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.

So the 'non angry people' are the ones that agree with op?

is that really what you believe? Is that how you would react if a sibling wrote something like that about you? "Oh it's out of context"?

But if you understood anything about MH you’d understand all those behaviours and actions are the hallmarks of someone deeply struggling. I get it’s hard on you, and as I said you clearly are trying, but I just think there are better steps you could have taken.

You sounds rather like you expect thanks from someone in the midst of a breakdown, and anyone who has every experienced a mental health crisis or supported someone through it, will tell you that’s not how it works. People spiralling are selfish, because they’re not thinking properly. If you expect thanks for someone in the midst of a breakdown, then that’s a sign you should step away…and if you find your own mental health struggling as a result of helping support someone else, then again that’s a sign you should step away.

I hope you do have a lovely breakfast and I hope your sister gets the MH support she clearly, desperately, needs.

Oh so first you were dragging her for asking for the dog, now you are dragging her for saying you can keep him?.
Who needs enemies eh?

I would give it back.

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

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?

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.

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 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.,

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?

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.

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.