To exclude sibling from wedding due to their lifestyle choice?

[Salitnan]

This will be incredibly identifying to anyone who knows my family and quite controversial but it’s such a bloody niche situation that nobody can relate to and it’s hugely stressing me out. I’m not writing this as ragebait or to troll, it is a genuine situation I am dealing with.

I’m getting married next year. My partner of 5 years is from a very traditional, right-wing Eastern European country. My partner however is very tolerant and chill, as are most of his immediate family who also live in Western countries.

We’ve decided to get married in his home country, as it’s very affordable there and we can have a beautiful package in an area of outstanding natural beauty, and he can invite his dear godparents who he adores (and they adore him) who are scared of flying.

This is all well and good but one of my family members is presenting an issue. My brother (who is an adult in their mid-20s) has a learning disability. This is not a problem, but in the past year they have come out as transgender. This has been a massive struggle for us as there were no signs previously and it came out of nowhere, and they have insisted they are going ahead with the transition and they self-harm if anyone misgenders them or politely reminds them of etiquette in public places regarding toilets, or wearing appropriate clothing for a social situation etc. It has been extremely hard work for my aging parents, he lives with them full time. The learning disability alongside being transgender makes them massively vulnerable and they get stared at in public and often started on when in the city centre by lads, and they aren’t aware of their vulnerability. They insist on dressing incredibly provocatively (wig and heels, provocative clothes) as they say they feel insecure otherwise, and when I have tried to explain to them that women don’t necessarily dress like that, they self-harm. They insult people in public, not to their face, they will say it to my mum (will whisper in her ear “he looks like a twat”), but sometimes people have overheard and started on him and my mum has had to explain about his disability and fend them off.

I’m already in therapy to deal with complex feelings towards them from how they dominate my parents lives and how I felt neglected as a child due to the focus on them and their vulnerabilities. The recent coming out as transgender has brought up a lot of old resentment I had towards him which I had buried, and I’m trying to have the therapy so that I can have a bond with him going forward, but I can’t help but feel a sort of anger at him, and I hate myself for it.

Back onto the wedding topic - I’ve realised I simply don’t want them at the wedding. My fiancé’s family are nice people and wouldn’t be a danger to my brother but many of my fiancé’s extended family members are from a small isolated village in a Catholic Eastern European country and he will be stared at like a hawk, whispered about. To he quite frank he will stick out like a sore thumb with his clothes and hair. As awful as it sounds I will be embarrassed by him and on edge, and won’t be able to enjoy my day. My partner says he’ll notify everyone in advance that my brother will be there and what to expect but I just really can’t be doing with the stress of it all. It’s not just family it’s the the staff in the hotel, other members of the public around who might be drinking, and they will need to stay in the country a few days around the ceremony so lots of opportunity for things to go wrong. They have severe social anxiety due to their learning disability and have been known to sneak alcohol as a way to deal with this and this further increases their vulnerability as they lose their filter and say their mind in front of people.

I did try to compromise and said to my mum I’d be happy to have them if if they would be willing to tone down their dress in order to come to the wedding - dropping the wig and toning down their clothes, but they have become angry at this suggestion and have refused.

I’ve told my mum it may be the case that I can’t invite them, and therefore my parents can’t come either as they are his carers. My mum says she understands and we can have a do later on back in the UK.

I just want my day to not be dominated by him. I also don’t want to have to change the wedding plans that me and my partner are happy with just to suit him. Am I an awful person?

Do you know who else counts at weddings? The bride and groom. But of course you expect the OP to expose her guests to a potentially violent individual in the name of tolerance.

I am actually hoping you are on a wind up because surely nobody can be that ridiculous.

You haven't the faintest clue.

Im so sorry for all that you’ve had to go through with your brother. Please ignore some of the unpleasant comments on here, they’re not living through what you and your parents have had to.

Please don’t alter your wedding day to suit him in any way shape or form. It’s your day and I hope your parents find a way to go to support you.

Yes? I haven't insulted anyone, haven't accused anyone of being racist, 'chicken shit', not having a faintest clue 'lalala' etc etc.

It is possible to disagree and challenge opinions without unpleasantness you know.

I feel sorry for the op but I feel so sorry for her parents too.

There’s no way he should come. It’s totally not worth the stress. Can your parents get respite carers for your brother so they can come?

I don't think you feel in the slightest bit sorry for the OP. She's said she's in therapy due to feeling neglected by her parents in her childhood. You've basically dismissed this, told her to suck it up due to her brothers disability and STILL put them first. When does the OP ever get to put herself first.

And it actually seems the OPs brother wouldn't be able to cope at ANY wedding, regardless where it was. So it looks like they wouldn't be able to attend anyway.

What should the OP do then. Just not get married?

@RedToothBrush not just Southport. The Calocane case in Nottingham had appalling failures too.
What he Nottingham Enquiry is revealing is horrific.

You keep wanging on about being the parents in this and how they are the most important people (so given he won’t have respite care, you expect them to take this VIOLENT MAN to the wedding).

Would you be happy for him to go, despite the fact is dangerous?

You have actually been nasty to the OP who is clearly struggling. Not very tolerant, is it?

You have also been hideous to some of the other posters because you are fixated with the parents not being invited.

I ask again - how would you protect the guests from this man who is a danger to himself and everyone else and insists on wearing a frock and high heels to go into the ladies’ toilets?

The fact you batted away the fact he used a butter knife is really concerning. If the nearest thing to hand was a kitchen knife, would that be okay?

How many times do we hear about someone with LD or MH issues stabbing a member of the public?

OP said he won’t have it, and if he’s violent to himself and others then I can’t see anyone wanting to do it

OK, let's look at it from another angle.

During a stressful time - travelling, waiting, going through passport control when it's very busy and some people will have been in the bar since 6am, all the noise, all the strangers, bright lights, noise, out of normal routine, told where to sit, having to cram over six foot's worth of legs into a tiny space, kids crying, somebody tipping their seat back - this disabled man with behavioural issues is triggered by somebody saying something, looking at him wrongly, sitting next to him or not even doing or saying something but he interprets it as an attack or insult and he becomes highly disregulated and possibly aggressive - what happens to him then? It's mid flight, what happens? There's some quite strong turbulence and people are anxious and it feels unpleasant - what then?

Or he makes it through that and out the other side, has to travel again in a strange place where people look at him because he is very different - he reacts - what then? Arrest? He attacks or becomes distressed and disregulated and ends up with the police being called - what happens to him then?

Or he gets as far as the wedding and manages to access drink. Somebody says something that he doesn't understand but believes it's attacking him - now there are items of cutlery within easy reach. What happens? Or he goes to the bathroom (either one) and encounters somebody who is drunk and/or is really hostile to him - what if he is attacked or attacks and instead of a butter knife (which can still do plenty of damage with enough force), it's a standard weapon?

He will not be safe, he will be stressed, he is at danger travelling.

That doesn't mean the OP must have a bog standard, cheap little registry office do at the local council offices without any of her husband's side of the family present - it means that for his own protection, he is safer staying in the UK and the OP gets married where they want.

@Salitnan I mean this advice very kindly. It seems you are in an awful situation - as are your parents. The details you're sharing are very very personal and identifiable. If I were you id ask Mumsnet HQ to have this thread taken down because of the tabloids. Please do consider this, as it would make your problem so very much worse if this goes to the papers. Good luck.

You have been deeply unpleasant to the OP and you have accused me of being disgusting for raising a highly relevant recent report which discusses this exact point.

I can find some relevant quotes if you like which say EXACTLY what I'm saying. Is the Southport Report ablist? Really? You've clearly not read any of it - you just think it's about the attack itself and not wider failures and concerns.

Inquiry chairman Sir Adrian Fulford found "catastrophic" failures by the parents of the Southport killer and various agencies meant clear chances to prevent the 2024 child murders were missed.

In a 760-page final report, Sir Adrian called for the end of what he described as a "culture" of agencies passing responsibility between each other or downgrading their own involvement in cases like this.

The findings of Phase 1 will shape the focus of Phase 2 of the inquiry, which is expected to start later this year.

It is expected to consider the adequacy of multi-agency systems to address the risk posed by young people whose fixation with and desire to commit acts of extreme violence presents a significant risk to public safety.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp86e615j68o

The OPs brother has a fixation, he has used violence and he has made threats to the wider public based on a completely irrational fixation. He is ticking these boxes.

Inquiry chair Sir Adrian Fulford described the "sheer number of missed opportunities" as "striking".

The report found that "no agency or multi-agency structure accepted responsibility" for assessing and managing the "grave risk" the attacker posed.

When concerns were raised about AR's behaviour, the report explained there was no individual or body with a clear responsibility to ensure the risk was assessed and prevent it.

While it said all those involved acted in good faith, the report suggested the "merry-go-round referral system" meant AR's case was passed from one public sector agency to another.

The inquiry outlined how critical information had been "repeatedly lost, diluted or poorly managed" as it was passed between various agencies.

This meant that the significance of earlier incidents of violence were "seriously underestimated" and opportunities to intervene were lost.

A number of examples of AR's behaviour are listed in the report, including information around his intention to bring a knife to school and an incident where he assaulted his father.

The most noteworthy example concerned an incident in 2022 when the attacker went missing and was later found with a knife on a bus, admitting to police he wanted to stab someone, the report acknowledged.

"Had the agencies involved in this episode had a remotely adequate understanding of AR's risk history, AR would have been arrested on this occasion," the report said.

It added that his home would have been searched and further critical information about his internet history found.

The report said the Department for Health and NHS England should review risk assessment processes for children and young people, and consider whether national guidance is required "to ensure clarity about who is responsible".

'Misunderstanding of autism'
The attacker's previous conduct was "wrongly attributed" to his autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the report found.

It said this mistake ultimately resulted in a failure to address his previous behaviours.

The report made clear that "it would be entirely wrong to make a general association between autism and an increased risk of violent harm to others", but said that AR's ASD characteristics means his autism "does carry an increased risk of harm to others".

Instead of recognising he was responsible for his own actions, the report found that agencies "regularly used his autism as an explanation or even excuse for his conduct", which was "both unacceptable and superficial".

Training for Prevent specialists should be strengthened to ensure they understand autism, the report found.

It then goes on to say

"AR's parents faced significant challenges, but they were too ready to excuse and defend AR's actions; they failed to stand up to his behaviour and set boundaries," it concluded.

The attacker's father is described as being "difficult" in cooperating with authorities, which included an "outright refusal to take legitimate professional concerns seriously".

The report accepted that this lack of cooperation was partly down to a "dangerously short-term desire to prevent AR from having a violent outburst" which would often be directed at his father, and was therefore "understandable".

Ultimately, "the parents' desire to minimise the number and frequency of AR's outbursts became a factor contributing to a far worse outcome".

If his parents had reported this information before the 2024 attack, he would undoubtedly have been arrested and he would either have been taken into care or held in custody, the report explained.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c239zz1m324o

Now if you have bothered to read this far, would you like to fully explain why you think I'm ablist and appalling for literally recognising the similarities going on here and the concerning pattern, which really needs an intervention for all concerned.

Reading the above and what the the OP has stated is really troubling. The parallels are there. I'm not remotely being a dick. The inquiry's remit for the second phase literally is about the application of this to the wider public and individuals exactly like the OPs brother to prevent any kind of repeat whether it be as serious as this particular case or less serious acts of violence.

You also have not addressed the points I've made about his already criminal behaviour where he has made threats to kill which are a police matter and prosecutable. Given he is regarded as having enough capacity to receive PIP rather than his parents receive it on his behalf there is a real problem here.

If nothing changes there will be a crisis point. That's got fuck all to do with the wedding and frankly the OP is wise to ensure that crisis point doesn't happen AT her wedding. As it is, there every chance he'll do something to get attention in the run up to the wedding from everything that been suggested. The OP probably needs to mentally prepare for this possibility too and just go get married tbh.

Tbh, I don't this point will particularly be pretty reading for the OP herself however I do think it important she knows all this and how the echoes of her brother's behaviour are massive red flags to be taken seriously.

She hasn’t bothered answering the question about how OP’s parents would be able to go without him and also how she feels about a strapping bloke in high heels threatening people

No I know. There is an avoidance of the crucial questions because there is more concerns over upsetting people than protecting people.

It's catastrophically ignorant and out of touch with where how agencies handle violent men with learning difficulties or autism is headed because of such an incident.

It will undoubtedly have implications for the family if matters continue in this way.

Of course it will. She will kick the OP and be vile to you because she would rather people be put in serious danger than admit she’s wrong.

The BBC article lays out very clearly that the Southport Inquiry is NOT just about the actions of a single individual carrying out a reprehensible crime.

It's remit is about all cases where people with learning difficulties and autism present having carried out violent acts or threats to ensure no one slips through the net and becomes the next case like Southport.

I await this posters response to explain away and minimise 'my disgusting behaviour' again when I'm effectively reading from this report what it's remit is and who it will ultimately affect.

It is young men with learning issues and autism, who have displayed violent behaviour in the past, have had police involvement, have parents who minimise, fixate on issues and express violent intent.

It is not about any person with a learning difficulty or autism. It is about the pattern of behaviour combined and associated with these conditions.

That immediately reduces the scope of it to a much smaller number and isn't ablist. It is about identifying risk and reducing risk. It is about early intervention. It is about stopping minimising and parents refusal to engage.

I would be so concerned as the OP. But thank God she is taking it seriously too.

Of course apparently it was ‘only’ a butter knife that he held to his own father’s throat.

As if that wasn’t bad enough he did it because his father wouldn’t play along with his pathetic delusion that he’s a woman.

If he does flip one day, then what’s the betting he will be trying to get in a women’s prison?

With Axel Rudakubana, I know he was diagnosed with autism, but I wonder if the problem was that his autism was used to excuse the additional issues and violence, or whether he was misdiagnosed and would have more accurately been diagnosed with some kind of personality or conduct disorder, or psychopathic/sociopathic traits, it's hard to know. I do think the autism diagnostic criteria have been broadened a lot, so it's not unheard of for people who might have been more accurately diagnosed with a very wide range of issues, either alongside autism or instead of it, to just be given an autism diagnosis. In many areas, they are then denied mental health care because services like CAHMS often don't offer anything to people with an autism diagnosis.
I do think there are issues like in AR's case where people are accused of racism or other bigotry for expressing concerns, but I think insufficient funding for services (which then highly motivates them to find any excuse to deny support) is an even bigger issue, which isn't going to get any better the way things are going.

What a brilliant (though heartrending) post. Thank you very much for your clearsightedness.

He showed a pattern of disturbing behaviour before he escalated to murder.

You’re in this thread downplaying and outright dismissing the brother’s disturbing behavior which includes violence, threatening to kill men with long hair, and holding a knife to his father. At what point do you recognize warning signs and stop insisting that other people should feel obliged to endlessly pander to and expose themselves to him lest his feelings be hurt? Oh, and if he does escalate to inflicting serious harm, will you then bleat ‘they should have taken him seriously earlier!’?

Parents count for as much or for as little as the couple getting married want them to.

OP has managed the situation just fine. She’s controlled what it is within her power to control. If it’s important for one or both of her parents to attend her wedding then they can make arrangements to do so, as they would have had to do in the UK as well.

I wouldn’t have him there either . A wedding is the one day you should really be the star of the show . This person would be a total distraction.

The thing is, I really don't want to be overdramatic or say something really awful. However with the information the OP has said it's difficult to ignore.

If the remit of Southport isn't to cover cases like this though, it's difficult to see who it is for. It is about recognising a pattern of behaviour in a particular at risk group. The whole point is to stop individuals escalating to a point that they hurt other people. It's that simple. It's a vanishingly rare incident and the manner and victims make it all the more of an outlier we don't want to draw parallels with and unfortunately that's a problem too as we can see from previous posters reaction. (Which is all about being offended again - this time the poster is offended that a case where young girls were the fixation is being talked about in the same breathe as a case where adult men are the fixation. Somehow it's deemed more acceptable because the fixation isn't a group who draw this concept of innocence in the same way).

It's worth noting the following too. One of the issues with Southport was that AR was ultimately referred three times to Prevent but then dismissed because he didn't meet the box ticking criteria correctly.

Significant attention was drawn to Prevent for failing to accept referrals of Rudakubana on the basis of his lacking a terrorist ideology. Although an emergency review found that Prevent had followed correct procedures on each referral, Home Office secretary Yvette Cooper concluded "that too much weight was placed on the absence of ideology"

This is about men with fixations and online radicalism which might not present in a nice neat way and perhaps isn't logical but none the less pose a threat to the public and fall through the cracks because they don't met understood definitions.

Its scary. But equally it's about making sure we don't read a headline about someone having done something awful and there having been a string of incidents which in hindsight everyone is left saying "why did no one do something when it was so obvious there was a problem".

What is clear is that the brother has been exposed to something online which he has fixated on, it has been accompanied by a change in behaviour which is troubling. He's in a known 'at risk group' and that's one of the biggest issues here. Frankly I would be negligent in reading all this, knowing what the wider reflections of that report are and to not point it out.

We'd all hope that the OPs brother is picked up by agencies and helped rather than them leaving him and his parents to it because he's too politically incorrect to touch and people might get offended because he's got a disability and because he's presenting as trans.

'He showed a pattern of disturbing behaviour before he escalated to murder'

Yes we know this now. The Southport atrocity of course warrants debate. Imo not on a thread about someone's wedding and wondering if db with LD and behavioural issues should be excluded though.

So many people display deranged behaviour, imagine if on every thread that someone wanted support and advice about family dynamics and violent outbursts we had someone post essay after essay about the Southport murderer?

It would be highly insensitive and absolutely inappropriate.

Behaviour of course needs monitoring and I imagine the parents in this case do just that.

Bullshit.

I've been on here a long time. A long long time.

Do you know how many threads I've seen where the red flags are presenting in this way? I can tell you this is one that stands out for a reason. The fixation, known violence and police involvement for death threats is highly unusual. It could be a troll for that reason but I am giving the benefit of the doubt because if it's real it's concerning.

As numerous posters have pointed out to the OP this isn't a problem restricted to her wedding. You keep returning this to her poor parents and wittering on about how awful I am.

The OP is embarrassed but more than that she's concerned about her parents welfare. Quite rightly. They are the most likely to be hurt not the wider public because they are already being subjected to parental abuse.

The OP needs to know three crucial things: 1) it's ok to free herself from the guilt of this situation and put herself first 2) that the problem at home is significant, and she should be concerned about the welfare of all three parties and 3) this is a situation no one is likely to be able to fix without outside help and it's a question of getting appropriate help because it hits some sort of crisis point as her brother is spiralling and fixating.

The OP knows this better than any of us. But she is in the FOG (fear, obligation and guilt) and feeling that she's wrong to be recognising a problem with someone she loves and actually wants to protect. It's a place of internal conflict and confusion. She needs to know it's ok to put herself first because it's an extreme situation and she needs to be clear sighted that this isn't a problem about the wedding. The wedding is just the point where she is forced to notice and address the issue that her family is dysfunctional and toxic. Other posters have pointed out that it's not unusual for people to reach similar epiphanies when they get married because it's the point at which you start your own family unit and have ideas about what you want it to look like and you remove yourself from what has been 'your normal'.

The fact you keep hanging on that she should just put up with it all is far fucking worse.