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.

Honestly, I think your sister ia making a knee-jerk reaction wanting the dog back so badly. Yes, ut would be nice for the kids to settle them back (she potentially promised him back if they were at all reluctant to return). But honestly, she is going to find it tough returning as a single parent and having a dog just adds complication and stress to all decisions. And it doesn't sound like he particularly wants to go back to them. I'd stand your ground and remind her that you both agreed it was perminent. But there might be a lot of fall out....

?

The flaky sister? You’ve met her? No, you haven’t. Neither of us know what she’s like. Her family do though, and they’re all telling OP to give her dog back.

The sister will, presumably, get equity from the sale of their joint house, along with child maintenance. She’ll also downsize. When she’s able to think, it’s more than possible she’ll go for a career change, bearing in mind the needs of her children and dog.

The OP wants to keep the dog. She loves the dog. I sympathise. But she’s made up reason after reason that she should keep it when the reality is she simply wants to. She’s also made comments about her sister that are not nice.

The best thing to do would be for the dog to make a staggered return to his family and for the sister to repay the OP for her care of the dog and the costs involved.

All you've done on this thread is argue with every single person who doesn't agree with you.

Being at home with a dog is not the same as being present - I know people who 'wfh' who barely move all day because they're 100% glued to their laptop and I know people who work away from the home 3 days a week who give their dog a far better life than those people who 'wfh.'

And dogs can re-bond and forget bonds easily. We only have OPs word they're bonded. And that suits OP's narrative. In fact, the interesting replies that made her sister out to be some sort of awful, incompetent, crisis-addled mother, have all suited the narrative OP has set out on this thread. Not one single thing points to her sister in any sort of positive light. Which is unusual, to say the least. Unless of course OP has some sort of axe to grind, or is being disingenuous. I know which I am hedging my bets on.

OP can spin whatever story she wants, and you cal fall for it if you wish. But the fact is those that know the actual situation (OPs family) are telling OP to give the dog back. But OP doesn't want to, so she'll generate any scenario/shit-talking her sister she can in order to get the internet to justify her, quite frankly, selfish decision.

True, but unlike a rehomed pet, generally people don't have a emotional adoptive or fostering relationship with a rehomed car or an armchair . You might however borrow a car or an armchair where handing it back would be expected. I don't think OP had any expectations of having to hand back the dog, as she made it clear she would not have agreed to re-home the pet on that basis

You bring up an interesting point. OP wants to keep the dog because that was the arrangement. OP made it clear that rehoming temporarily wasn’t an option because it’s not fair on the dog. Dsis agreed. OP took over ownership of the dog, including transfer of details and updating the chip, paid for it all, paid vet bills for issues that Dsis had neglected and for the last seven months has paid for the dog’s upkeep without any contribution from Dsis. To all intents and purposes this is op’s dog. Why would you think it’s OK for Dsis to insist that because she’s back early the dog belongs with her ? It’s very sad that her marriage has broken up but that has no bearing on the fact that she voluntarily signed over ownership of the dog to OP.

You’ve never made a mistake? The sister didn’t want to sign over ownership to the OP. Did she really want to move abroad or did she feel she had to?

Yes, she signed the dog over at OP’s insistence but on the understanding she’d be away 3 years not that it would only be a handful of months.

Do you ever watch Judge Judy? She never orders the return of a dog when it has been living happily elsewhere.

The most important thing here is what is best for the dog, and that’s staying with its legal owner.

Where does it end, sister demanding to have the house she lived in before back for the children?

It’s awful what’s happened but the dog is happy and settled and has a responsible owner.

YANBU. The dog has settled and is now bonded to your other dog, it would be cruel for him to be moved back to hers without his packmate and to be left alone far more often. It's sad she's going through all this, but you had an agreement before she left and it sounds like the dog is happy and content.

It isn’t a mistake though is it ? Dsis was leaving for three years - most responsible pet owners would rehome their pet permanently in those circumstances - OP recognised that that was the best option for the dog and rightly insisted on it. Whether the sister really wanted to move abroad isn’t the issue. It’s the fact that she’s now home in changed circumstances and wants to remove the dog from a stable and loving home where it has company all day and has bonded with another dog in companionship, to a situation where she works and the dog will be alone for the majority of the day.

"They had him from a puppy and for years longer than you."

Correct. For 3.5 years. But that didn't stop them from planning a new life abroad for 3 years and leaving him behind, thereby depriving their kids of their dog and all the upset that would cause them. Why didn't they arrange to take the dog with them? Or not go?

And what about the upset they willingly inflicted on their dog. Its family of 3.5 years suddenly disappears one day. The dog cannot be expected to understand that its family will return in a few years' time. It's beyond cruel.

I'm team dog. He's very happy where he is with his new family and should remain there.

I feel sorry for the sister's kids but the parents removed the dog from their lives in the first place. That wasn't the OP's doing.

Also, the OP's kids have bonded with the dog now. It wouldn't be fair on them for him to be removed. It also wouldn't be fair on their other dog.

Can you flip for it.

a permanent family rift isn't worth this

This would probs be my view.

Totally get why OP doesn't want to give him back, but all this stuff about 'the dog's best interests' is nonsense. The dog won't give a shit. Not worth falling out with family over.

I’ve taken part in an online discussion - if you don’t like what I have to say, scroll past. And if you’re going to doubt everything the OP says, what’s the point of the discussion anyway ?

The agreement as anticipated by the sister and OP (sister moving away for 3 years) didn’t happen. I think the OP should get back the money she’s spent on the dog and I would hope she’d receive profuse thanks too for caring for it.

Yes, OP made it clear she didn’t want to rehome the dog temporarily, but shit happened. The sister didn’t plan to mislead the OP. Things have gone horribly wrong. I get that this is upsetting for the OP - I genuinely get that - but I could never keep my sister’s dog in those circumstances. I’d be upset, I’d be angry, I might even get my sister to sign something saying she’d give me the dog permanently if things didn’t work out in the next 6/9/12 months. But what I COULDN’T do is keep my sister’s dog, knowing she’d had it since it was a puppy, knowing it had grown up with her children, knowing it had lived those years with her.

(Edited for formatting)

I'm just genuinely curious as to how someone can have the time available in their life to literally argue with every person on this thread. You must be soooooo bored.

Might I suggest a new user name...'ThreadGuardChihuahua,' perhaps? You remind me of one.

But all of this becomes irrelevant when you consider that Dsis will be taking the dog from a stable and loving home where it has companionship all day and has bonded with another dog, to put it in a situation where she is at work and the dog is alone. And for what reason ? She was happy enough to leave the dog behind for three years so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that she’s not as focused on the dogs’ welfare as the OP.

OP, keep the dog!! Your sister has made her choices and he is legally yours, you did not steal him. His behavior around her/them makes it obvious he has bonded with you and your family and your other dog. If she cared about what was best for him and your family, she would not even ask for his return.

I haven’t argued with every person on the thread, don’t be daft. And although my personal circumstances are none of your business, I can assure you I’m not bored - quite the opposite, enjoying the discussion and interactions. You on the other hand are just rude and looking for an argument.

Well, I bet the sister regrets it now, so it was a mistake. She made the wrong decision and she’s suffering for it.

The sister doesn’t have to work all day every day. I imagine that’s a panic reaction. I thought that first when I got divorced, but as my head settled, I realised I could manage not to and to fit around my children and dog. At first I did t work at all. A downgrade in lifestyle but worth it. I then got a P/T job wfh. Again, less money but it was what was right for my family.

OP wants to keep the dog because that was the arrangement. OP made it clear that rehoming temporarily wasn’t an option because it’s not fair on the dog. Dsis agreed. OP took over ownership of the dog, including transfer of details and updating the chip, paid for it all, paid vet bills for issues that Dsis had neglected and for the last seven months has paid for the dog’s upkeep without any contribution from Dsis. To all intents and purposes this is op’s dog. Why would you think it’s OK for Dsis to insist that because she’s back early the dog belongs with her ? It’s very sad that her marriage has broken up but that has no bearing on the fact that she voluntarily signed over ownership of the dog to OP.

I agree. And people are saying about the sister's kids getting 'their' dog back, but the OP's kids will have been told the dog is theirs, and presumably/hopefully when they emigrated the sister told her kids the dog now belongs to their cousins, so that should be known and understood by everyone. Of course, if it turns out the sister didn't explain this to her kids when they moved, then its a tricky situation of her own making...

Well for a start I am not impressed by someone who supposedly loves their dog upping and moving abroad but not taking the dog with them. If the country or accommodation or whatever was not suitable there was the choice not to go.

Secondly she hardly gave her new life/new country much of a chance did she? I have moved abroad and it takes quite a while to feel settled.

Thirdly she thought it a good idea for the dog to be shared by 3 people! That is just a crazy idea and certainly not good for the dog.

Fourthly she works 3 days a week so the dog will be left apart from a walk by a dog walker. It will be leaving behind its new dog friend which will most likely be upsetting for both dogs.

Fifthly she ignored an eye problem the dog had - hardly the sign of a caring loving owner.

Sixthly she doesn't seem to have given any money towards the dog's food, vet costs etc etc etc. Again hardly the loving dog owner who is missing her dog and wants the best for them.

I stick with my view that said sister is flaky

Agree. The reaches some posters are making to defend the indefensible are astounding.

@WatchTheStormTouchDown I don't know if this has been suggested (I've read your updates, but not the whole thread), but I wonder it it would benefit your sister if she has some kind of counselling? She's had a lot of input from family members, but no-one there can really give an objective opinion. She's in a bad way and although she thinks having the dog back may solve one of her problems, it could just add to them, especially as she will have to move soon.

You have done a wonderful job with keeping the dog; he/she obviously loves being with your family. I can only sympathise with your situation.