A woman refused to take her husband’s younger sister in after her father’s death because the couple had decided not to have children together. The husband felt conflicted, as he wanted to care for his sister, but his wife disagreed.
The husband, referred to as the original poster (OP), shared on Reddit that after his father passed away, leaving his sister with no one to care for her, he planned to do anything for her. However, his wife did not share the same sentiment.
The couple had been married for two years, and the OP’s sister, who was much younger, saw him as more of a father figure than an older brother. The little sister was eleven when their father passed away.
The dilemma arose because the OP and his wife had not welcomed any children and had no plans to in the future. Despite the tragic loss, the couple did not want children, which became a source of tension.
The OP’s sister had two options for guardianship – the OP or their uncle (their father’s brother). They asked the sister to choose, and she opted to stay with the OP.
However, the wife objected, stating that taking in the sister would mean having a child, and since the uncle could adopt her, they shouldn’t have to.
The OP, prioritizing his sister’s well-being, insisted on taking her in, leading to conflict with his wife. After a heated exchange, the OP told his wife that he would let his sister stay with them, even if it meant divorce. They did not talk for a while.
In an update, the OP mentioned that he and his wife decided to go their separate ways after discussing the situation again.
The wife claimed he chose his sister over her, and the OP affirmed that his sister was his priority. Many people supported the OP’s decision, commending him for prioritizing his sister’s needs.
Some criticized the wife for not being more compassionate, while others empathized with her perspective, acknowledging the challenges of caring for a child dealing with trauma.
The OP and his wife ultimately parted ways, with the OP embracing the role of a single father-figure for his sister.
These Target stores are set to close: Here’s the full list
Target, grappling with escalating theft and “organized retail crime,” is set to close nine outlets across four states. Despite “adding more security team members, using third-party guard services, and implementing theft-deterrent tools,” the challenges with crime persisted. Below are the affected markets along with the remaining stores and employment data:
New York City: Harlem: 517 E 117th St. (96 remaining stores, over 20,000 team members) Seattle: University Way: 4535 University Way NE Ballard: 1448 NW Market St., Ste. 100 (22 remaining stores, nearly 4,000 team members) San Francisco/Oakland: SF Folsom: 1690 Folsom St. Oakland Broadway: 2650 Broadway Pittsburg: 4301 Century Blvd. (32 remaining stores, over 6,400 team members) Portland: Galleria: 939 SW Morrison St. Powell: 3031 SE Powell Blvd. Hollywood: 4030 NE Halsey St. (15 remaining stores, more than 2,500 team members) Over 150 stores remain operational in these regions. Target is boosting security through locking cases for certain merchandise and allying with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations division. “While we will continue to make meaningful investments throughout our business, we cannot solve this issue on our own,” the firm noted.
Leave a Reply