Being blackmailed by in laws.

[Daisytrotter]

Sorry, more of a wwyd but am sitting here in pieces, really need advice.

Apologies if I don't reply straight away but have to pick up my friend from the airport.

My mil was diagnosed with dementia two weeks ago. This is after a year of some behaviour which could be considered odd. Interestingly, it was me who suggested that she visit her gp after I found that she had taken the fluffy inserts out of my croc shoes and was wearing them as slippers Also, she has been having some significant memory problems, but all in all she functions quite well.

Since ds was born 14 months ago, mil has come to stay with us for a week every month. Fil comes down twice a year or we go to stay with them (they live in Swansea. It's not an arrangement that I was ever happy with but ds is her first grandchild and I wanted her to have a strong relationship with him. however, her visits have become increasingly hard work for me as she turns the fridge off at the mains, leaves the back door open as well as other things which a not dangerous per se but annoying. Also dh is at work all day so I am at home with her.

When she comes down she really badgers us to go out so she can babysit. On the three occasions she has babysat, we have come back to find ds absolutely hysterical. I put it down to the fact that he doesn't really know her but now I think she may be leaving him for long periods to cry.

Anyway, since the diagnosis came to light, I spoke to dh and said that I am no longer happy for her to come for a week every month and I don't want her to babysit. I suggested that her and fil come every two months. I just have a feeling that she was using the time with us for a break for herself and i feel as her disease progresses, fil will be using the break as respite care. Dh thought this was a good idea and put it to them when he called them.

They went ballistic. Mil insisted on keeping to the arrangement of monthly visits and babysitting and fil said we were compromising her dignity. I understand that they are struggling with the diagnosis but I also have to think of ds and my own life.

Then fil dropped a bombshell. They had lent us money to buy our house and he said that if mil was not good enough to babysit then their money wasn't good enough for us either. He has demanded it back which essentially means we have to sell the house and rent as we would not be able to buy another property. He has also threatened us with legal action if we do not pay the money back in full by the end of June.

I don't know what to do. They are extremely well off and don't need the money so this is tantamount to blackmail. I have no issue with them visiting I just don't want mil every month and I certainly don't want her to babysit.

Help?

She could argue that it was a gift, but that she feels uncomfortable and is returning the money. Just saying that without legal documents to say it was a loan, its really FILs word against hers/DH's. If he was going to be shitty, then she could too. I wouldn't recommend that though, I'd sooner just tell him that I would continue to repay at the rate agreed and refuse to be coerced into being a respite carer.

Have come to the conclusion that being in the house has not necessarily improved their lives. They have MIL staying 1 week in 4 and FIL causing them all sorts of stress about the loan. They may end up selling this house to pay FIL back.

Well, it is being treated as a loan, then whoever might say whatever should it ever go to court

TBH, I can´t help feeling that it would choke me to walk into the house with all the crap surrounding it.

FIL doesn´t seem to respect them & I´d rather have a lesser house than be beholden to someone like that.

They might be able to re mortgage and borrow more on the house, to pay the FIL back.

Well, we don´t know the OPs circs-but it does seem that she wants to keep things as they are if poss.

But for me, MIL for one week a month would be too high a price

Me too diddl.

That said, I can see how OP felt obliged to have MIL more than she would have liked.

I am not a civil lawyer, but I know the basics and I would not imagine for one minute that the FIL would get a court to order immediate payment of the money.

It is clearly a loan - and both parties clearly have established expectations of the terms of the loan, ie he gave them the money and they have been paying it back at a set rate.

This would, I would imagine, be taken as clear evidence of a verbal contract and the court would not get involved with one party's wish to change the terms of that contract. If the loan wasn't being repaid he would be able to take issue, but it is.

If the FIL raises it again if things don't go his way, I would suggest that the OP and her DH say "OK, you do what you have to do but be aware that this is likely to lead to an irreversible breakdown in the family relationship".

Anyone who tries to manipulate me - I say - "No, that doesn't work on me."

There is of course the obvious - if you have to sell the house and rent, it is likely to be a smaller house that won't have room for MIL to stay...

I find it hard to believe that some people think the OP isn't being supportive. I'd be interested to see their comments if the flipside was posted on AIBU:

I am a SAHM with a toddler. For three weeks of the month I look after my child myself while my husband is at work. For the other week, my MIL comes to stay and likes to babysit. She has shown some odd behaviour for a while now but we have continued the visits, however she has now been diagnosed with dementia. Her husband thinks she'll find it difficult to make the three hour journey to our home now (including a trip across London) but I think that if she gets the bus or a train to London and I meet her for the tube journey she'll be fine. (I'll have my toddler with me but am sure they'll both behave!) I don't see why the babysitting visits should stop or change just because she has a progressive illness that affects her mental and physical functioning. I've heard that people with dementia lack insight into their own capabilities but think that's rubbish - if she wants to continue to visit then why not?

There is one thing that you could do daisy -

absolutely refuse to take charge of the respite care for your MIL:

tell your husband that if she is sent down to you both, that you will not be remaining in the house; he must, and will have to, perform the Care. If it means him using Annual Leave entitlement, then so be it.
If you follow through *and do not provide services I believe you will find the situation will be rectified much sooner.

I think Dittany is quite correct: there seems to be a very sexist set up in this family.

Your FIL behaviour (insisting on particular times) does scream of something "extra" i.e. an affair.
That is by-the-by, except it points to a very sexist notion that he probably holds in regards to Womens Roles - including your own.

If you, physically, take yourself out of the Caring Role Everytime your FIL AND/or your husband insist, what can they do?

Nothing. Except organise appropriate Care.

Your FIL wealthy you say?

Let him pay.

He cannot even be bothered to transport his wife to you himself.

Research your financial freedom from this man. ASAP.

I don't know that the FIL sounds necessarily like he's having an affair, I think he's a man used to being in control who is backed into a corner. He can't control his wife's condition and that's challenging him (consciously or unconsciously), and now his DS and DIL have further taken control away from him by moving the goalposts WRT his week of respite from caring for his DW.

Now, I'm not for a moment suggesting that the OP is in the wrong in refusing to care for her MIL. There is no obligation for her to do so, and given the circumstances (she being the one at home and not her DH, and the fact that she has a small child to care for also), a change in the arrangements is not only appropriate, but sensible. MIL is of course going to be devastated at what her DS and DIL have said, but her expectations are not matching up to her abilities right now. She thinks she can care for the child, there's no way she can be trusted to do this. She also will need to be in her home environment more and more as her dementia progresses. Perhaps FIL is as in denial about it.

Were the OP and her DH insensitive in how and when the situation was discussed with the ILs? Yes, no doubt. Whichever way you paint the set-up, it will always look like MIL gets diagnosis, DS and DIL don't want her anymore. That's not how it is, but that's also going to play a part in why FIL has had the reaction he has. It was emotional and spur of the moment (shown in the fact that he later backed down) and it's still ongoing.

I'm not excusing FIL, his behaviour is shockingly bad, but I think it's entirely understandable that he had a severe reaction of some kind. The OP and her DH need to let the dust settle and approach FIL when the news of the diagnosis has had a chance to sink in.

Maybe it was handled badly-but there were already signs.

That doesn´t make it less of a blow, of course.

But OP is saying that she cannot care for her MIL & her own child.

And that MIL can no longer be left in charge of the LO.

FIL is still wanting to send MIL there on her own!

Yes, I know. The whole situation has been handled badly. Mostly by FIL, but his reaction can't be logically measured, it is fraught with emotion and a challenge to the fact that he has previously been able to have things the way he wanted.

OP and her DH have presented a reasonable alternative, but were wrong in how they presented it.

FIL had an entirely understandable reaction, but has been wrong in not controlling the extent to which he expressed it.

No one has been perfect in this, and right in the middle is MIL, who has just had a devastating diagnosis and is now probably thinking she is unwanted. I know if my family were fighting over not having me with them, that's exactly how I'd feel. Must be so sad for her.

Again, I'm not saying the OP is unreasonable with what she is saying or proposing, just in her delivery.

Agree with everyone else who says that the FIL is having an affair in that week so would definately ask questions as to why she must leave their house for the week. I have worked with loads of elderly couples for about 20 years, this is very unusual indeed, actually I have NEVER heard of this before. Lots of relatives travelling lots of miles to support their loved ones but not a husband farming out to a DIL who lives miles away for one week in four.

Furthermore, if he doesn't see the realities of the situation and STILL wants you to provide 24 hour respite care for a week then it would cost about £800 in a care home (I know someone with Dementia in a care home in Cardiff, that's what they pay) so I would point out that actually he is getting a really good deal from his loan money and probably actually he should be waiving the loan and paying you a bit on top aswell. (Don't actually default on the loan though for reasons that other posters have stated!).

chinax, you need to read the whole thread, FIL has withdrawn that threat.

Disclaimer: not a lawyer, but do have a couple of law degrees.

There are two sorts of title. Legal and equitable. Legal is who owns something on paper, and usually, there is no equitable worry because nobody is going to come along and demand a share in your socks. But if someone owns something legally they can also owe someone else a share in it - think abouty trust. If you leave something to your kids in trust, the truistees own it on paper. The interest - benefit - is owed to your kids. So an equitable interest in something legally owned by someone else, which can arise without paper, is simply a fair share, given the understanding of the parties involved. So if you move in with a bloke and he says (and admits he said) "pay half the mortgage and the house is ours jointly from now onwards..." then that shows intention, and you'd be entitled, in equity, to a share as originally agreed. He is the legal owner, but you both have an equitable interest in the place. If, on the other hand, he says, "give me some cash in lieu of rent..." the intention was never that the place is shared, and you never get any equitable interest. The assumption is always that legal title follows equitable, but the assumption is also that people don't generally hand over fat wedges of dosh to buy a house out of the goodness of their hearts. There have been very sad cases where elderly people sell their houses and let a child buy a big place supposed to house them all - then the child turns round and says, "whistle for it, and sod off." The legal title may be with the child, but the equitable is with both parties, and, rightly, the law will protect people in that scenario. That being so, it's probably just as well that the OP can prove a loan was being repaid, because it means FIL has no equitable interest in the house (I think - again, not a lawyer).

Warmster, I'm sorry but as far as I know your assumption that the courts will always follow the interests of the child isn't right. That is the case (paramount consideration) under family law, so I totally understand why you have that impression, but this would be trust law and not dealt with in the family courts. If your assumption were correct, no home could ever be repossessed by a bank if children inhabited it, and sadly as we all know that is not so. The courts are not bound to favour a family with small children more than someone owed a legit debt by that family, and nor would they make a judgement on a monetary issue based on the FIL's motives for wanting his money back. The issue here is that the agreement was gradual repayment, the loan was not secured on the house, and though a lawyer may correct me (again, not a lawyer) I can't imagine any court ordering the house to be sold to settle a manageably repayable debt, especially as that debt is being repaid in exactly the way agreed when the money was lent. He can't unilaterally alter the terms of an agreement in a way that is massively unfair to the other side. They've stuck to their side and that's all they needed to do, as far as I know (again, law is complex and my understanding is basic, ancient and half-forgotten, so if any trust lawyers want to jump in and correct it all that might be as well, if I'm totally wrong any/everywhere).

None of this really matters, as FIL has pulled back, but I do think for peace of mind the OP should see a solicitor or the CAB to find out where they stand. I could be completely wrong, but I suspect that all FIL could do would be to get a court to agree they should repay him exactly as they are and always have done.

Orchidee your post is spot on IMO. I am really stunned that some people think that the FIL is more important here than his wife, or his grandchild. The arrangement he is suggesting would be seriously dangerous to one, and dangerous and potentially very damaging to the other - and jaw-droppingly ungrateful, to boot.

"The assumption is always that legal title follows equitable"

Sorry, that should be "the assumption is always that equitable title follows legal".

perfectstorm I am happy to be corrected. Seems we are both on same page about him not just being able to demand money back just like that.

Bad joke ALERT: Maybe fil will change his mind now that the Swans are in the premier league.
Ring him now when he is in a good mood!

Seriously, though, whatever way the consensus is arrived at- be it by legal bods and the laymen- it seems that the general opinion is that he can't just demand repayment just like that.

I may be wrong. I'm honestly not just saying that all fake modesty. Law at uni level is like doing a course on maintaining your car or a first aid course - the main thing you learn is that you know nothing, compared to actual practitioners. I'll be not a whit surprised if a lawyer turns up and gulps, before correcting my misremembered, theoretical, and very dumbed-down-to-begin-with assumptions.

But yeah, I can't see how a court would do more than just restate the agreement already made when the loan was issued. But I think if OP saw CAB/a lawyer it might soothe her anxieties, and mean she could negotiate with FIL without a horrible fear at the back of her head.

I hope to God DS marries someone like Daisy - asks me to stay lots when they have babies, and is willing to care for me 6 weeks a year when I'm demented! Wow. I am resigned to not interfering, never judging, and being grateful for what I get in terms of grandchild involvement. Daisy, knock out a DD for me? I want you to train her to be just like you!

And I'm wrong saying this would be dealt with under trust law, because no trust arose. I confused myself there!