Who was unreasonable? A return of borrowed baby things...

[Cleanmywindows]

A and B are sisters. A has 4 dc aged 7-1. B has 2 dc aged 2 and 7m.

When B had her first dc, A was very supportive and provided a lot of the stuff A needed. When A subsequently had her 4th dc, B sent back various items she was no longer using, along with some items which were new for B. Some of these A then returned to her for use with B's second dc. Overall, A has spent far more money on the items that have been used by both sisters than B.

Recently, A asked B to return a specific toy that A's youngest dc is now at the appropriate stage to use. B said that her oldest dc was still using the toy - would a new replacement of the item be acceptable to A? B said no - for good reasons, she wanted the originally lent item back. B agreed to return the toy.

However, the conversation caused some bad feeling between A and B. B says A did not ever use the words 'lend' or 'borrow' when providing the items to B but feels that, as sisters, this should not need to be explicated. B feels the reverse, claims that she never requested help from A and stated that if there are other items that A has 'lent' to B, then A should say what they are because B did not understand that these items were on loan. B said she would not be able to give back loaned items if she did not know what they were! B feels angry that A was not clear about wanting certain items back. She said she would not have accepted children's toys 'on loan'. A feels angry that B has taken her assistance for granted and has not acknowledged the financial value of the items.

A responded with a list of items - two higher value items and a few more specific toys, and requested that these be returned today. A said that she is struggling financially, and can either make use of the items herself (and therefore not be out of pocket for similar items) or resell them and bring in much needed funds. B is coming to the end of mat. leave, with not much to spare herself, but is not struggling as much as A who is a SAHM and has recently had her tax credits cut. B said that she will need to replace some of the items, some of which are necessities (breastpump) others of which will be missed by her toddler, who doesn't understand why her toys have been taken away. A told B that she cannot afford to be out of pocket on account of things she's already paid for once. B told A that her restricted finances are a result of her decision to stay at home and are not anyone else's problem. A told B that she is done with the sharing of items and that the future of the whole relationship was in question. B cut A off, and ended the call, saying to A that she was coming close to saying things she would come to regret. B returned the items (via a third party) and so far no further messages have been exchanged.

Obviously I am one of these people. If my sister is reading, she'll certainly recognise herself as I've been pretty specific! I've tried to be neutral, although obviously that's hard. Who was being unreasonable?

[maddening]

B should not have argued but asked to wait a couple of months for 1st wage to kick in.

[maddening]

Just noticed you are b, if you had passed stuff back last time why do you think it is different this time, you understood it was borrowed Imo just pissed off it wasn't timed perfect for you. Yabu. Make up with your sister, apologise, for your dc if nothing else - having cousins you grow up with is more important than a ride on toy.

[MaybeitsMaybelline]

I guessed you were B. I think you should have returned the toddler truck as it possibly had sentimental value to A, but the rest of the stuff A is being a complete dick over, and to sell things you are still using is just mean.

I agree with B that as sisters with several children between you then you should be able to pass on, add to, lose, break, add some more to, pass back on, without any conditions. Anything you really wanted to keep and not share then you do just that, keep it and put it away for your next DC’s sole use.

Hope you get it sorted before it escalates B 🌷

[Mummyoflittledragon]

Actually I’d like to amend my comment. The loan thing wasn’t a misunderstanding. You passed things back to your dsis when she had her fourth. You understood these were shared items, which ultimately belong to the original purchasor. In your title you even say about items being borrowed.

[EllieQ]

My older sister gave me a lot of baby things (there’s 8 years between us so her children are several years older than mine). Our cousin had a baby a couple of years after I did, so I passed on stuff from my sister to her - but I always checked that my sister was ok with it first. So I think B was unreasonable, as she should have realised that A would want the loaned items back when A had another baby, and made sure her children didn’t get attached a toy that A would want back soon.

[Crystalintheeyes]

I don’t know anyone that loans toddler toys Iv gave some of my kids toys to others as they have out grown them. I wouldn’t dream in a million years to ask for them back if I had another!!

A is being unreasonable and tight.

I also think what you said is fair. Harsh but true.

[Eliza9917]

What good reasons could A want the original toy back instead of a new one? It doesn't make any difference.

I stopped reading halfway through anyway, but just wondered this ^

[Quartz2208]

A started it, B continued it. A escalated it and B crossed a line

In effect OP both of you have been. The only way this is going to be resolved is if you both accept you were wrong

Given you have asked on here presumably for validation you were not I can’t see that happening

[Halo84]

A was unreasonable to want the original toys rather than replacements. However, overall B was more unreasonable. Telling A her financial situation is her fault, because she chooses to be home with her children, is horrid and demands an apology. I think that comment is the reason for the escalation.

I have 3 children. Any toy but for their bedtime stuffed animals would have been totally replaceable. So I think B is overreacting to returning the toys.

[Quartz2208]

Hold on this escalated from a push along ride along toy type thing. OP is you were prepared to buy s new one why not just give A back hers and keep the new one.

Because that is what started it actually and surely if you could buy a new one that would makes sense. Because saying your dc had an attachment to it is slightly ironic.....

On rereading your post I think you need to take some time to look closely at your part in this. A reacted to your refusal the initial request was reasonable based on how it had worked in the past

[Cleanmywindows]

For those who take issue with my use of a and b, in a genuine attempt to find out if I was unreasonable, I wanted to write it in a way that was as neutral as possible. If I'd written it in the first person, full of how I felt mistreated, this would have coloured opinions. I see posts like this quite often, I'm not sure what the big deal is?

Anyway, thanks for your opinions. Yes it probably was u to comment on her sahm status and associated money struggles. However, it wasn't just me she upset with her remarks yesterday, other family members were also impacted and I was - insensitively perhaps - reminding her that these struggles are due to her own choices rather than anything the rest of us have done.

The offer of the replacement was only because we are not local to each other and it seemed easier to simply have a new one delivered to her. When that was deemed unacceptable i did agree to give the old one back with no more discussion. It was at that point that I said I had no idea it had been a loan, that she'd never used those words and that if there were other things she would be expecting back, it would be a good idea for her to let me know what they were!

I was (and am) pissed off that I am going to be left out of pocket and upset that I had to go round bagging up my toddler's toys, which she will certainly notice are gone. If it had been made clear that the toys were a loan, I would not have accepted them. The use of 'borrowed' in my title was merely an attempt at a summary of the post.

Good advice about being the one to make up, sisters are important etc etc. Not what I feel like doing right now of course but I can see that this is the right thing to do.

[Quartz2208]

OP in your above post when you say it was at that point that is the point you became unreasonable

Because let’s face it if she hadn’t asked for it back and bought a new one she would also be out of pocket but out of pocket twice. She probably felt it unfair she got a new one and also wanted the one her other 3 children had used

And then you said with the other toys not her

And ride on toys are often dime a dozen at charity shops

[INeedNewShoes]

It's worth rising above this if you can. I think the best way forward is for you to say you're sorry about the misunderstanding and that you have been grateful for the use of the things.

Leave it at that but know never to accept anything from her in future.

I don't think you're massively in the wrong apart from the discussion of her financial situation.

I know my toddler wouldn't remember about certain toys if I removed them (and she doesn't have that many) so hopefully your DC won't be upset as long as you don't mention them.

[diabeticsanon]

op people get confused with the 'a' 'b' thing it's easier to say it's you and dsis to start with, a of the replies have been about who's a / b.
it comes across as 'if i don't get a favourable response no one knows either way.

[Cleanmywindows]

Hmm I didn't think about it like that! I was always going to come clean after I'd got some opinions.

[onalongsabbatical]

Well the big flaw is that you're trying to pass things on but having children close together, so it basically doesn't work, does it? So there's bound to be feelings of entitlement and resentment on both sides.
Best to let it go really and get things elsewhere, as pp have said.

[AuntieCJ]

I don't see anything wrong with the way you worded your original post. I understood it easily.

[TedAndLola]

YABU for the A and B nonsense.

[Cleanmywindows]

I agree onalong but for my part the resentment is due to the fact that I never requested the loan or gift of anything. These items were simply presented to me, often via other family members. They were taken and appreciated. And now I feel like I've done something wrong by not realising they were 'due back' with the birth of the subsequent dn. I suppose I agree with those posters who've said if it's a loan that needs to be stated clearly by the lender and that the loan should be for duration of need.

Anyway, I've learned my lesson!

[Danascully2]

Is it right that one of you has a 1 year old and one has a 7 month old? That is too small an age gap for this to really work, might have done when they are babies but not as they get older.

[Itsallokusually]

Yabu. Give the stuff back and say thank you.

[blackteasplease]

A is unreasonable. You can't take a toy off a child that she is currently playing with to give to another child who hasn't as yet known anything about said toy.

[VelvetPineapple]

I don't think they were a loan until she realised she was a bit short of cash and became a CF

This. A gave the stuff away then when she realised she still needed it herself she tried to pretend it had always been a loan. She’s a CF - if you give stuff away and regret it you just have to suck it up!

[yikesanotherbooboo]

Find a way to paper over this it is utterly trivial.
FWIW if I pass stuff onto my DSis I expect to get most of it back plus new stuff as bought by her but any leant item is for her DC's use as long as they need it. For this reason I might calculate that I would hang onto eg the cot or pram ( apart from short term lending) in case I need it. I wouldn't worry at all about small items eg clothes or toys and advise you strongly not to fall out of stuff like this. My experience is that when people are being unreasonable over petty issues they may have some background stress or unhappiness going on deserving of your thoughtfulness.

[Cleanmywindows]

Thanks for this perspective yikes, you are completely right about the background stress.