Should I say something to sister in law...?

[Dandyish10]

SIL has recently had her 2nd baby.
Neither her or my BIL are currently working(BIL is self employed and has very little work)

They already have a 15 month old and have told us they are struggling financially.

I have bags of clothes stored that my DC has outgrown and I thought as a nice gesture I’d offer them to SIL for her DC.

Today I noticed in a Facebook group, that both myself and SIL are in, that SIL is selling the clothes I have given her.
The clothes are all in fantastic condition and decent names like Joules, JoJo, Next, GAP etc.

I’m not sure if she knows I’m in this Facebook group.
I feel quite upset that she’s selling my DC’s clothes for money when I only really gave them to her for her own DC to wear.
If she didn’t like them I’d rather her have given them back to me.

I don’t know whether to say something about it or if I’m just overreacting.

It's the same thing in the sense that money was given for a specific use and then diverted to a different one, without the knowledge or consent of the original giver.
OPs SIL gained those clothes by deception - she specifically said she needed clothes for her child to wear. Which is the only reason the OP gave them away. She did not ask OP if she had any unwanted things for her to sell on fb!

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

It's the same thing in the sense that money was given for a specific use and then diverted to a different one, without the knowledge or consent of the original giver. OPs SIL gained those clothes by deception - she specifically said she needed clothes for her child to wear. Which is the only reason the OP gave them away. She did not ask OP if she had any unwanted things for her to sell on fb!

It’s not the same thing because in the pp’s example, the charity is giving the money away. Nothing has been given away by the sister in law in the op’s situation.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

It's the same thing in the sense that money was given for a specific use and then diverted to a different one, without the knowledge or consent of the original giver. OPs SIL gained those clothes by deception - she specifically said she needed clothes for her child to wear. Which is the only reason the OP gave them away. She did not ask OP if she had any unwanted things for her to sell on fb!

Also a bit of a stretch to say she gained them by deception. Nowhere in the op’s posts does it say she actually “asked” for them.

I see it differently - more like a fraud with the sil/charity claiming to want goods for X purpose but having no intention of using the goods for X purpose. People would not donate if it was made clear what was really going to happen to their property/money.
It's about honesty. If you obtain goods by deception, they aren't yours to do with as you please.

It is deception. The OP gave them for her niece to wear. The sil said her children needed clothes. It doesn't actually matter whether SIL asked for them - she took them knowing that the OP had given them for the children, not for SIL to sell

Finding it hard to understand all the drama on this thread. It started off as “cheeky” now we’re into fraud and deception!

Have you ever been broke, OP?

It's about principles Whosaidit. No one is suggesting calling the police
But taking something by claiming you need it to clothe your child, when that isn't the truth is deceptive and not something a person should have to expect or accept, certainly not from family.
SIL may well have financial worries. Or she may get just be a chancer. The thing with lying is that the OP has no way of knowing if anything SIL says is true now. Doesn't bode well for family relationships.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

It's about principles Whosaidit. No one is suggesting calling the police But taking something by claiming you need it to clothe your child, when that isn't the truth is deceptive and not something a person should have to expect or accept, certainly not from family. SIL may well have financial worries. Or she may get just be a chancer. The thing with lying is that the OP has no way of knowing if anything SIL says is true now. Doesn't bode well for family relationships.

See, that’s a good example of what I meant about the drama. Saying that op now has no way of knowing whether Sil is telling the truth ever again. Too dramatic in my view.

Okay, but it's true though. OPs SIL lies. If I trusted someone who had previously lied to me, I'd feel like a mug. CF's get away with it because people are nice and trusting and want to give others the benefit of the doubt.

Would you see it differently if SIL had told OP she needed money to pay her gas bill, OP gave her that money and SIL spent it on something else? Because to me it's the same. People just think of it as baby clothes, that the OP didn't need so no big deal. But they are things that the OP bought and only gave away because she believed her SIL genuinely needed them.

But it wasn’t about money or a gas bill. I just cant get wound up about this situation. It doesn’t feel like something to lose sleep over or fall out over. I would find it strange, and then move on.

It is money though. Baby clothes aren't free. The OP only gave them to SIL because SIL claimed to need them for her child. Which turned out not to be the truth.
I honestly don't get how you don't view the lying as important. It really would affect how I viewed her going forward.
It's interesting that some people just think of it as a bit strange but no biggie and for other people it's much more important, so I guess SIL and the OP just fall into opposing sides of the divide.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

It is money though. Baby clothes aren't free. The OP only gave them to SIL because SIL claimed to need them for her child. Which turned out not to be the truth. I honestly don't get how you don't view the lying as important. It really would affect how I viewed her going forward. It's interesting that some people just think of it as a bit strange but no biggie and for other people it's much more important, so I guess SIL and the OP just fall into opposing sides of the divide.

The way I see it is this. Nowhere does the op say the sil ASKED for clothes. She said she was struggling a bit for clothes. That’s not asking. Now this could have been idle chit chat with no real meaning behind it. Maybe they don’t get on, maybe she was desperately trying to find things to say. Or maybe not. Who knows. The op offered her some clothes and she said yes. Maybe she didn’t really want them and never had, she had just been chatting about stuff but didn’t want to say no. Maybe she was being polite. Maybe she really needed the money. Maybe there were too many clothes for her child. Maybe they didn’t fit. Maybe they weren’t her style. Or maybe she’s a CF. I have no way of knowing what happened and why. And neither does anyone. So I would lose no sleep over it and move on. There’s no need to accuse the women of lying and that she can never be trusted again, just because she sold the clothes.

@Purplewithred

Were you planning on using them again? They are skint, this might make a lot of difference to them.

Tough shit, let her sell her own stuff.

Thanks, Mrs Hunt - you get what I was driving at.

Personally, I think it's actually worse if you're selling something that was given to you to meet an identified need rather than passing it on/sharing it with somebody who is also in need.

On the charities thing, people will frequently give money to a particular charity and specify the purpose that they want it to be spent on, so the charity will then restrict the funds for that purpose - and then, were that same charity to use the donation for a different purpose, that would also be unacceptable.

Unless you're a trader who openly buys/accepts and resells second-hand goods in the course of your business, I think it's really grubby to seize on something that is offered to you (whether as a gift or a loan - and you should always check) to meet an identified need and treat it only as a means to get cash.

I often wonder if there is a minority of people using food banks who do actually have enough money for food, but also want something frivolous/unwise. Suppose you have £30 and you need food for the week and also want a nice new outfit for a night out. You know that nobody is going to sub you for the latter, which is the one you can easily do without, so you claim you can't afford the former and, hey presto, you can have both.

Yes, I've been desperately poor myself, but I still wouldn't abuse somebody's kindness (even 'charity', if you will) by selling something they'd given to me that they knew I needed.... let alone before checking if they had actually given it to me and definitely didn't want it back, as you would naturally expect might well be the case with baby clothes coming from somebody who might have more children themselves.

These kind of actions quickly backfire, as however 'decently' you might think you seem to live, once people know that you're no better than the stereotypical beggar on the street who 'will only spend it on drugs if you give them money for food', goodwill tends to dry up sharply.

There are a lot of 'maybe' in that Who. It doesn't matter whether SIL asked, the facts are that she took them, saying she needed clothes for her DC, when that wasn't true. I mean you can go through life making excuses for people's shitty behaviour or you can look at what they actually do and respond accordingly. In your situation of 'maybes' the sil could have offered back what she didn't need, or asked OP if it was okay to pass on/sell what she wasn't going to use. That she didn't do that, indicates that she knew it was wrong to just take them and sell them.
Things that are given to her for a specific purpose aren't really hers to sell.

Most people give clothes but don't expect to have to specify please don't sell if you don't want to use them.

I'd definitely message. Especially if you would want to use them again.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

There are a lot of 'maybe' in that Who. It doesn't matter whether SIL asked, the facts are that she took them, saying she needed clothes for her DC, when that wasn't true. I mean you can go through life making excuses for people's shitty behaviour or you can look at what they actually do and respond accordingly. In your situation of 'maybes' the sil could have offered back what she didn't need, or asked OP if it was okay to pass on/sell what she wasn't going to use. That she didn't do that, indicates that she knew it was wrong to just take them and sell them. Things that are given to her for a specific purpose aren't really hers to sell.

🤷‍♀️

Op said the family were struggling financially, she wanted to help them so gave them some clothes, sil sold them so had been helped financially. The desired outcome has happened. Why so much desire to control how this sil used her “charity”? It’s quite patronising. Perhaps op wanted to feel good about herself by seeing those kids in her clothes and how she can’t. I dunno. I would really consider deeply why I was upset about it if I were the op.
The real issue would be if the sil and her family weren’t actually struggling financially and had lied about that, but there is no suggestion from op that this is the case.

I'd definitely message. Especially if you would want to use them again

And how do you expect that exchange to go?

Whosaidit completely agree!

Years ago I gave a friend lots of baby stuff that I would definitely have used again if I hadn't given it to her. I was happy to give it, her need at the time was greater than mine and she was my best friend. I didn't expect it back and can't remember what she did with it after (and don't mind because it was given, not loaned). But I would have been upset and felt cheated if she'd taken it and then sold it without ever having used it for her baby.

We tend to hope that baby things we loan out/ pass on will be carefully looked after and then given back/ passed along. In reality, that rarely happens- if you want to use your baby stuff again, just keep hold of it.

I can understand why you feel hurt- you thought you were providing something that your nephew needed, and there’s something of a sentimental attachment to things shared between siblings/ cousins. But if your SIL is really struggling, and you can afford to help, it would be better to help another way (supermarket voucher? Getting them some shopping with your shop ?) rather than giving items which have meaning for you.

Op said the family were struggling financially, she wanted to help them so gave them some clothes, sil sold them so had been helped financially. The desired outcome has happened. Why so much desire to control how this sil used her “charity”? It’s quite patronising.

As I said before, even donations to charities sometimes come with stipulations that they are to be used for a particular purpose and are not for use however the charity themselves see fit.

By giving/lending clothes for the child, OP was meeting an identified need. How do we know what they did with the money they made from selling the clothes? They might have targeted the money at something they believed that the child/family needed more; they might have spent it on something frivolous for themselves and said 'stuff you' to the child. We don't know.

If the SIL genuinely thought she'd been given the clothes to hawk and keep the money, or even that OP wouldn't object if she did, why would she not have commented when OP handed them over? Surely she would have remarked "Ooh, thank you, decent second-hand clothes sell for a good price - I can make us a fair few quid to help pay the bills with these". or similar. They'd already admitted that they were struggling financially, so it's not like they would have been too embarrassed to mention their intentions, even just in passing.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

Op said the family were struggling financially, she wanted to help them so gave them some clothes, sil sold them so had been helped financially. The desired outcome has happened. Why so much desire to control how this sil used her “charity”? It’s quite patronising.

As I said before, even donations to charities sometimes come with stipulations that they are to be used for a particular purpose and are not for use however the charity themselves see fit.

By giving/lending clothes for the child, OP was meeting an identified need. How do we know what they did with the money they made from selling the clothes? They might have targeted the money at something they believed that the child/family needed more; they might have spent it on something frivolous for themselves and said 'stuff you' to the child. We don't know.

If the SIL genuinely thought she'd been given the clothes to hawk and keep the money, or even that OP wouldn't object if she did, why would she not have commented when OP handed them over? Surely she would have remarked "Ooh, thank you, decent second-hand clothes sell for a good price - I can make us a fair few quid to help pay the bills with these". or similar. They'd already admitted that they were struggling financially, so it's not like they would have been too embarrassed to mention their intentions, even just in passing.

I can’t get on board with the references to charities and what they would do. The sil isn’t a charity and would not likely want to be seen as one, and the op is not in charge of what sil can do with things she has been given! I really don’t think I would want to be helped by someone who wanted to control what I did with that help. It goes completely against the spirit of helping someone. As I said before, i just can’t and won’t get worked up about what the sil did!