Mom Raging Son Is Excluded From Fiancé's Event As He 'Isn't Family' Praised

A woman who was not allowed to bring her 7-year-old son to her future sister-in-law's birthday meal because "he isn't family," has received a wave of support from users on Mumsnet. Several users said the future sister-in-law's move was "mean" and "rude."

According to a post shared on Mumsnet's Am I Being Unreasonable (AIBU) forum, the woman (under the username feelingthepinch) said she has been with her fiancée for five years and the couple live together.

According to the user, she and her fiancée's sister "get on ok" but she's "always been a bit off" with the user. "She was good friends with his ex wife, so probably she feels a bit awkward or disloyal if she likes me or something," the user said, adding: "It's never been a huge problem though. We are civil and friendly."

The original poster said she wanted to bring her 7-year-old son to the meal because while "the older DC [dear children] can stay at home, the youngest is 7 and i'm not keen on the others having the responsibility of him for that long as the restaurant is just over an hour drive away."

A family gathering over a meal outdoors.
A family gathering over a meal outdoors. iStock/Getty Images Plus

The user said there are other children attending the outing, ranging in age from around three to teens, and the restaurant confirmed there was space to accommodate her son. But when the user's partner asked his sister if they could bring the child to the meal, she said no "because we are not married, and he isn't family," the user said.

The original poster said: "If she'd of said no because there was no room or because no dc [dear children], I'd of understood completely but the fact she said he isn't family just sort of stung me a bit. No we are not married, but we are engaged and live together and DP [dear partner] has been in DS [dear son's] life since he was 3."

The user said her son is "a very well behaved child" and "we are paying for our food anyway, so [it's] not like he would cost her anything."

The original poster said the incident has left her "feeling a bit disappointed and like I'm basically an outcast and still not seen as part of the family."

A March 2017 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Family Process states that "in stepfamily contexts, children in families that maintain positive relationships may experience a greater sense of stability and support, whereas those with conflictual family relationships may experience the transition to stepfamily life as a significant loss, source of stress, and threat to their emotional security."

The study explained that: "Findings from nationally representative studies and meta-analyses indicate that children in stepfamilies are at an elevated risk of experiencing maladjustment in terms of academic, social, behavioral, and psychological well-being."

Several Mumsnet users shared messages of support for the original poster, with some saying it was "mean" and "rude" of the future sister-in-law to have banned the child from the meal and that it isn't "unreasonable" for the user to feel offended.

User sunglassesonthetable said: "I wouldn't want to go. I wouldn't make a big drama of not going. But I'd be hurt. Your son is well behaved, other children there, there's room and you're paying. Bloody Hell it's just rude and not nice."

Scarletandtheblack: "I don't think you are unreasonable in being offended - of course it's up to your sil [sister-in-law] who she invites, but if there are other children going, it's really rude to single out your DC saying they are not part of the family.

SliceOfCakeCupOfTea noted that "Perhaps she's worried that he'll [the 7-year-old son] occupy all of yours and DPs [dear partner's] attention if he doesn't know anyone, or if he's meeting people for the first time then maybe she's worried he'll steal the limelight? Either way it's mean and if she really wanted you both there she would have allowed it."

Cactuslockdown said: "That's horrible OP [original poster]. I wouldn't go where my child wasn't welcome either."

Others agreed it is hurtful to not be considered family, even though the user is engaged to her partner.

Littlepaws18 wrote: "I would be so hurt by this. The point is you will officially be family in the very near future and making that distinction of family/non family is so divisive..."

Coughee said: "I'd feel the same as you and probably wouldn't go [to the outing]...because she's showing you she's really not that bothered about you...I'd accept that was just the kind of relationship we had and not go jumping through hoops or making an effort to find a babysitter..."

User bridgetreilly agreed, adding: "If DS [your dear son] isn't family because you aren't married, then neither are you. I wouldn't go."

If you have a similar family dilemma, let us know via life@newsweek.com. We can ask experts for advice, and your story could be featured on Newsweek.