DH and I have a dog (let’s call him Hector) which MIL looks after for two days in the week when I’m at work (I’m part time). This arrangement came about because MIL offered. She had recently retired at 55 and had intended to get a dog of her own, so said this would work perfectly. She’s just down the road, so we take Hector to her in the mornings and pick up after work in the afternoon. Technically he’s still a puppy (just over 1yo) so there has been the odd issue over the last year at MIL’s with shoes and other possessions which have been left within reach being chewed. Initially we compensated MIL for the damaged items as we felt responsible, but as time went on it was starting to become costly and we discussed the importance of puppy proofing, which has worked for us as we have never any damage at our home. Items continued to be damaged as a result of MIL leaving cupboards open, boxes of things on the floor etc. and we've felt more reluctant to continue paying for replacements despite MIL’s hints. We’ve asked MIL whether she’s finding the dog too much as we can revert to doggy day care, but MIL claims that she absolutely loves having the Hector and would be upset if those plans changed.
The other day MIL had forgotten that she’d left a kitchen cupboard open and had gone out in the garden. She came inside and realised that Hector had eaten the food in the cupboard and needed emergency attention at the vets. The bill was in the hundreds which MIL is asking us to pay for. Our insurance excess doesn’t warrant claiming and we are very reluctant to pay, as in our view this caused as a result of MILs error and she doesn’t seem to be learning from previous mistakes.
DH has pointed out how much money we save on day care by MIL having Hector, but MIL offered, we didn’t ask. AIBU in thinking we still shouldn’t have to financially compensate MIL for damage and vets bills when she has failed to ‘dog proof’ her home?