AIBU to keep my sister’s former dog after she moved back?

[WatchTheStormTouchDown]

I’ve name changed as this is a very outing situation. I wasn’t sure whether to post in the dog house but opted for here.

My sister moved abroad 7 months ago due to her husband’s work. They were originally moving for 3 years but my sister didn’t settle there so they’ve split up and my sister has come back with her children.

When they were planning to leave, they asked if we would look after their dog temporarily for the 3 years and they would have him back when they returned. We thought it over and said we would only take the dog if it was permanent. We knew our children would get attached to the dog and didn’t want them being upset when the dog had to be returned. They looked at other options but eventually agreed, reluctantly. Microchip/ownership was changed over to us and we pay all costs.

My sister is now back much sooner than planned with her kids and they’ve asked for the dog back. He is our dog now and completely settled in with us. We would all be heartbroken to not have him.

My whole family is piling on guilt and pressure for us to give the dog back. They’re using the kids to emotionally manipulate and saying my sister has enough on her plate with the split and having her dog back would help the children settle back home. They’re also saying that as the dog has only been with us for 7 months, we should give him back as it’s not long enough for him to have settled. My niece and nephew are upset but that isn’t surprising with moving countries, being without their dad and now moving back all within a few months.

We don’t intend to give him back. He isn’t a toy to be passed around when people change their minds and plans change and he has a great life with us. If we don’t give him back, I think it will cause a permanent rift in our family. Are we being unreasonable to keep the dog because we can’t give him up? I don’t believe it’s in his best interests anyway.

Putting aside that the dog is clearly very settled with his new human family, I couldn’t separate the two dogs now they are used to having one another, they’d both be heartbroken 💔

Very well put, I totally agree.

No way would I be handing the dog back! As she’s out the house 3 full days a week and then for activities she shouldn’t even have a dog !

💯 right to keep him with you where he’s settled, not left alone, has more sauce and doggie company

It’s quite possible that OP is coming across that way because she’s pissed off with her sister for putting her in this position. Frankly I would be. She agrees to hand the dog over permanently, allows OP to shoulder all the costs, as well as the vet fees and living costs for the last seven months, and then comes back and expects OP to be happy to be treated as though she’s nothing more than an unpaid dog sitter. Not to mention a complete lack of concern for the dog, who’s being passed around like a parcel.

It sounds like the dog is much better off with you, keep him and give him the best life

Agree. I 100% would never consider a move that didn’t include my dog. I’d rather leave my dh 🤣.
I think as you agreed that you having the dog permanently is the important bit. It would be different if you only agreed it would be temporary for the length of her move abroad.

I guess it depends who you see as a bigger priority, your niece and nephew who have been through an upheaval, or your dog.

Keep the dog he's yours now. She can rescue another one. And then when it's inconvenient she can had that one to you as well.

Definitely not unreasonable. As you say, the dog isn't a toy.

Dogs live such a short time, if she was willing to be parted from him for 3 years of his life she cant care that much. She would be just as willing to give him away again if something else new and exciting come about in the future that meant life would be easier without that commitment.

He is signed over to you, he is your dog now.

They gave the dog away! It's not cruel of OP to keep the dog. What on earth?

Surely there is going to be bad feelings no matter where the dog ends up? Even if OP does give the dog back, she is going to feel pressured by sister and immediate family when that wasn't the agreement, have very upset DC and things are hardly going to be rosy.

For me, the dog would be the priority. It has no control over what happens to it, which is why its owner is charged with making responsible decisions in its best interests. Which is what OP is doing. It’s not a toy for the comfort of Dsis’ children as much as I sympathise with their situation - that’s emotional blackmail.

I am concerned about it, but we have a responsibility to do right by the dog that we own. My sister is responsible for herself.

Sending him back to be alone when my sister is working isn’t something I’m prepared to do because it isn’t the right thing for our dog. I also don’t think it’s the right thing for my sister. Her life is upside down, she has work for 3 days, she may need to increase her hours now, my niece and nephew do swimming, dance, football and scouts. She does not have time to look after the dog. She also plans to take the children to see their dad in the school holidays as she won’t send them alone and won’t leave them with him. The idea of having the dog back doesn’t work in reality for her.

I’m going to do something that is wrong for everyone long term to please my sister short term. It’s reassuring that the majority agree.

I want things to be ok with my sister but I’m not putting our dog in a bad situation for that because I’m a responsible owner.

Exactly. As much as I would feel for my sisters’ circumstances I would be mightily pissed off if she put me in this situation. For the last seven months OP and her family have thought the dog to be their own and have bonded with it, only to have sister come back and treat them as though they were convenient dog sitters for seven months - and unpaid. Just no.

The dog should 100% stay with you, OP.
I can see why your sister wants him back but it's not fair on him nor best for him and he's not going to do what she wants him too: provide a remedy of the problems caused by the parents, moving, splitting and all the fallout from that.
Sure, he'd give her and the children some comfort - but that's not what we should expect sentient beings to do regardless of how it effects them - but it would also provide her with difficulties because she's not in a position to meet the dog's needs.
Give it a little time to get over the worst of what's happened and I'll bet she'll come to see it that way too. Although actually I don't know given the once considered plans for him.
In any case, keep him!

@WatchTheStormTouchDown I can understand why your sister wants the dog back, she’s come home unexpectedly, her marriage has ended, the children are unsettled, and she’s trying to restore something familiar and positive for them. That’s a very human impulse.

But none of that changes the fact that she gave the dog up. Not temporarily, not informally - permanently. She and her husband agreed to that, the microchip and ownership were legally transferred, and you took on full responsibility and costs. No one was coerced. They made that choice because it suited their plans at the time.

If someone in her current situation were asking whether they should get a dog, the answer would be a clear no. Newly single parent, two children adjusting to a major upheaval, likely needing to work full-time, and no stability yet. That is not a setup where a dog’s needs can be reliably met.

And it’s worth asking: If the dog was so essential to the children’s wellbeing, why didn’t they take him abroad? Why was “time-share care” even considered? Why was giving him up seen as the best option at the time?

The dog is not a toy that can be passed back and forth when circumstances change. He has settled, bonded, and built a routine with you. Seven months is long enough for a dog to attach deeply, especially a sensitive, intelligent breed. He has a stable home, consistent care, and a family who love him.

Your sister’s situation is sad, and her desire to make her children happy is understandable. But it doesn’t override the dog’s welfare, nor does it undo the fact that she relinquished ownership. Legally and ethically, he is your dog now.
You are not being unreasonable. You are protecting the dog’s best interests. A permanent family rift would be tragic, but it would not be caused by you, it would be caused by people refusing to accept a decision they made themselves.

I inherited a standard poodle and no way would I have given her up to the original owner, who admitted that she had fully become my dog even through they brought her up for the first 7 years of her life.

I agree. I think unfortunately your sisters’ life is going to be somewhat chaotic until she sorts herself out, and you’ve offered your support with that. It’s not an environment in which to introduce an animal at the moment, and maybe the question you need to ask her is if she had never had a dog, would she choose now as the best time to actually go out and get one. I suspect if she’s honest, the answer would be no. She’s clearly not thinking straight, which is understandable given that her life has just been turned upside down, but your priority is the dog and you are doing the right and responsible thing for him. Hopefully when things calm down a little she’ll come to realise that.

So with everything your sister is currently dealing with (presumably alone) you now want her to move house? Maybe the poor woman has enough on her plate just now?

My sister doesn’t have time for the dog with work and doing things with my niece and nephew. My niece and nephew are not old enough to realise that and we do not let children make adult decisions that they do not know the consequence of.

I do not believe my sister would be asking this if she wasn’t feeling like her world has fell apart, which it has. I believe that when she has things more together, she will realise it isn’t best for the dog to be with her, because she can’t give him what he needs and deserves. I think she is trying to make herself and her kids feel better but having the dog back is only going to add stress and mean the dog is alone. She was very against dogs being left alone previously and only agreed to having a dog when her husband worked from home.

You can try to say I don’t care about my sister and my niece and nephew but it is not true. I want to do what is best for them AND our dog, and obviously my children. We agreed the dog was ours. They said they couldn’t face losing another dog and my sister agreed knowing how upset my children were. She now wants to go back on that but I believe only because she isn’t thinking straight.

She also plans to take the children to see their dad in the school holidays as she won’t send them alone and won’t leave them with him.

And what happens to the dog then? Who does she expect to take care of it? It gets left again, wondering where its family has gone.

Whatever the impact on family relations, you are doing the right thing for the dog. Keep it.

It depends on the circumstances though. If Dsis has only just returned to the UK she may be renting, so a move nearer OP and the rest of her family may not be difficult. It’s an offer of help and support from OP, so I don’t see the problem.

Ultimately, I think you should do whatever is genuinely best for the dog. I'm not a dog owner and I won't pretend to know what this is.

Setting that aside, I think the fact that you said you wouldn't take the dog unless it was permanent is relevant here. I understand why you said this. And permanent means permanent - not indefinitely until someone changes their mind.

So I feel that you have more "right" to the dog than your sister's family, based on what was agreed. But the dog's wellbeing should override that if necessary, and all decisions should be based on what is best for the dog.

Your sister shouldn’t have asked for the dog back and involved the wider family.
Also OP if they had taken the dog, could the estranged husband have insisted on keeping it?
At least now she has access to the dog.
Sounds like the dog has a better life with you.

Yes because OP's sister hasn't got enough on her plate just at the moment.
I wonder if her children have broken hearts not seeing their dad anymore.
You sound vile.

Oh ffs. Yes, I don’t want her to have to cope alone when she is telling me she isn’t coping. I’ve had her crying to me about how tired she is, how guilty she feels about everything and how alone she is.

Yeah, sure, paint me as the nasty sister because I want her nearby so I can help her with childcare and anything else she needs. I have literally told her to just come to me, she can stay with us til she is sorted, she can just sleep and I will sort anything and everything she needs from food to getting the kids enrolled in school when she is telling me she feels so low that she can’t cope. She is already going to have to move as she can’t keep the house they owned together on her own. She can’t afford to buy in the area she is in now alone so will have to move and move the kids schools etc.

I am not forcing her to move but I and other family have suggested it when she is crying to us, so that we can help her.