About PIL and bill splitting

[Fakeplasticcheese]

We visited SIL (DHs sister) this weekend, staying in a hotel in her home town. PIL came over for the day. We went to the cinema and for a meal. For context we have two kids and SIL has a partner but currently lives alone (and was alone when we met) and has no children. DH and his sister are both early 40s and very close in age.

For both the meal and the cinema PIL paid for themselves and SIL, and we picked up the bill for our family. It was done very openly and left DH feeling pissed off. It's not about the money (and no-one attending would struggle to pay for a cinema ticket and pub lunch - though I have been unemployed for two months) but the openly biased treatment.

Unfortunately they do have form. We would probably be non-contact if we didn't have children.

Is DH BU to be peeved? Or should it wash over him? Does anyone else have parents or in-laws who do this kind of thing?

Cross posted with Chatter!

Also I remember mil and sil going somewhere nearer to where they both lived.
Instead of asking either of their husbands to take them, who were both available and have cars, tbey asked my dh to take them and pick them up!
On that day both myself and dh were taking our dcs to separate hobbies.
I told him to tell them to do one.
Who the fuck asks someone else to drive them around when their own dh had a car sat on the drive?
My dh was coming sidering it too, that's how screwed up some families are.

With you saying you could quite easily go non contact I would withdraw.
You can't change them .
Better to distance yourself from their weirdness.

I think this is ridiculous. A grown man with his own family complaining because his parents paid for his sister's entrance to the cinema. How childish, he needs to get a life and I would hate to be stuck with anyone like that.

I think YABU.

This is an incredibly petty thing to ‘keep tabs’ over, and I don’t think it’s any of your DH’s business (let alone yours) if his dad wants to shout his sister a movie ticket.

I am really struggling to see the problem

I think you’re overthinking this.

Your fil paid for ‘his’ family as he saw it, ie his wife and daughter. Leaving your DH to pay for ‘his’/your family, that being you and your dc.

Had fil paid for himself and mil, leaving your sil to pay for herself, that would have been petty, but paying for five others on top of himself and mil would seem excessive. I think fil split the bill as evenly as was possible. He pays for three adults, your DH pays for two adults and your dc.

I think it's quite petty for your DH to be annoyed, and to take offence. You have your own children to pay for & you would hardly expect PIL to pay for you both & your two children? If your DH was alone with them & SIL then it would make sense to be annoyed, but it's really not worth the hassle. There are more important things to be worrying about fortunately

Was it a film that SIL wouldn't be interested in seeing if it wasn't for your family visiting ie a kid friendly film so they wanted to compensate her for that? Or things are a bit tight for her so they offered to treat, or the fact that they are visiting her home they thought it would be nice to treat her? Think you are being a bit silly tbh.

'pattern of divisive behaviour'

'we would probably be NC if we didn't have kids'

...is the wrong way around. Having kids is THE reason to go NC if they are divisive. Because while you as adults can have an adult perspective on the whys and wherefores of dysfunctional family behaviour, kids can't, and it can have - depending on how it's played out - a far more negative effect on them than on you.

I went NC when I had my children and I'm absolutely glad that I did.

I think this is all quite petty. It would be weird if PIL paid for your DH and not the rest of the family - it seems pretty divisive and unnecessary. My parents do this - if we go out for a meal altogether they pay for their meal and we pay ours. I was there recently just myself for a funeral and at the meal they paid for me as well as theirs. No big deal.

YABU and a bit petty. You may not know the whole story. SIL may be having a bad time financially or they may owe her money.

"Unfortunately they do have form. We would probably be non-contact if we didn't have children."

If the "form" is bad, then you should be NC for the sake of the kids!!

I was just coming in to post what FizzyGreenWater did. Your concept of 'no contact' is completely backwards.

The situation is either so dire that you would go 'no contact' for the sake of your children. Or it isn't.

You sound petty on this thread. Perhaps there is some backstory that you haven't posted but you don't know everything that's going on with your SIL and neither does your husband, nothing you've said indicates any closeness to your PIL or to your SIL so why you think you'd be party to that knowledge is baffling.

My advice would be to leave well alone. You may be married but this is still your husband's family and likewise, your parents/siblings are your family when it comes down to it. Don't get in the middle.

If the back story is similar petty non issues then YABU and quite ridiculous.

If the back story is far more serious behaviour then just go NC.

On the basis of this incident alone you sound really hard work.

I don't see the problem. FIL pays for his wife and his unmarried daughter. Your DH pays for his wife and children. Each man pays for his own "family". It's a pretty old fashioned viewpoint but hardly an odd one for a man who is likely to be in his 70's....

So dh paid for everyone and then Fil made sure that your dh only paid for his immediate family.

^this.

YABU.

I know that my Mum sees my single sibling as more "in need" of this sort of thing than the rest of us.

My PIL also provide more for my single sil than for DH. It's compensation I think...though that's rather patronising. I think it stems form concern. "Oh...poor X....all on their own"

Is it one of those them and us payment divides? 'I'll get ours and you get yours' or else it ends up one of those embarrassing loads of cards and cash counting etc.

It could be that she is still thought of as a child because she is not married. It could be that she was reluctant to go and they said they would 'treat' her. It could be that with them buying stuff for the kids - (mainly t.shirts) that they want to even up the distribution and spend the same on each child.

I actually feel embarrassed for you and your husband. God getting all upset because one sibling was paid for and not the other. As adults. And minor sums of money.

Grow up.

Genuinely thank you for all of the replies. I asked the question because I couldn't think of a logical explanation but I think it must be because FIL still feels responsible for SIL as several people have suggested.

As for being hard work and petty, I'm really not. I was curious about what happened, but not furious about it. I stay well clear of DH's interactions with his parents and he would never raise something like this with them anyway.

We are closer to DHs siblings than any of them are to their parents. I don't want to dissect history but clearly what has gone before has clouded my ability to judge things benignly. Something I should bear in mind.

As for the issue of contact. Basically it is limited (silently acknowledged by them and DH) which keeps things on an even keel most of the time.

I think if anyone should be offended it’s SIL who is still being treated as a dependant simply because she is single.

I agree with PPs that it makes sense to just shout one more adult (rather than have the fuss of SIL go up and pay separately), and have the other family unit pay for itself.

Maybe PIL owes SIL a small amount of money and paid her back by buying her ticket?

If they'd have paid for DH's then they would have felt obliged to pay for yours and your two dc which would have been expensive.

I think you’re lucky. If we go for a meal with the inlaws, my family, siblings or our adult children the assumption is that we will pay entirely.