Dear Judy,
I’m not God, but I suspect my daughter, who is just 39, is terminally ill. Her ovarian cancer — cured we thought 2 years ago — has apparently spread. She has also had a double mastectomy. Nothing has worked. She is taking heavy pain medication.
She and my son-in-law have 2 children, 9 and 11. I want the kids to live with us, especially during these terrible times. My daughter is okay with this, my son-in-law is not. His parents are also not. They think the children should stay where they are.
But Judy, my son-in-law is a very busy man: he has a law practice, but owing to the economy some of the associates are no longer there, and he has taken over their workload as well.
My husband and I are retired. We think the kids should be away from trauma, and maybe have 2 fulltime parent-substitutes caring for them, taking them to sports practice and to and from school.
What do you think?
Anna
Dear Anna,
What I think really doesn’t count, because your son-in-law has already weighed in with his verdict. But here’s some advice:
In terrible times, such as the one you describe, the children should of course get as much help and attention as possible. That’s where you come in.
Since you are, as you say, retired and have a lot of time to devote to your grandchildren, phrase your offer of help that way. Come over to their house frequently, help with the driving and the cooking and caring as much as is needed. That way you can tend to both your grandchildren and your daughter.
I know you want to spare the kids the trauma of death and separation, but I’ll be blunt: that just isn’t possible. Probably your son-in-law realizes this. Certainly he doesn’t want his children to live elsewhere — and you must abide by his wishes.
After all, from what you write, he will soon be losing one person he loves. He is naturally disinclined to be separated from two others at this time.
Thank you for writing
Judy
The son-in-law is totally manipulative. If he wants the children home, he should decrease his workload. Instead he increased it and assumes others will fall in line. However, there’s really no choice here but to respect his decision (unfortunately…) and Judy’s advice.
At ages 9 and 11, the grandchildren are old enough to understand the facts of life. And death. There’s really no point to protecting them from harsh reality.
Anna, do you really think that if you take these poor kids from home they’ll think everything’s all right? You know that’s not the case! They’ll miss home! They are about to lose their mother, so do you really think they should also lose the security of their familiar environment?
The last thing these kids and their mother need now is a family feud. Cool it.
People, am I the only one to see Anna’s point of view? So it seems — from reading the comments posted.Those poor kids have been living for two years under the shadow of a dying, non-functioning mother and a self-centered father. Their grandmother wants to introduce an element of normality into their lives. There is no perfect answer in this situation, but hers is the most reasonable in the circumstances.
These kids are losing their mother, the father has “checked out” so to speak and they don’t need to lose their home as well. I would agree with Judy. I hope to never lose a child, even a grown one with children of their own. My advice, be it ever so humble: Go (quickly) and be with your daughter and her children. Keep opinions to yourself and be a Mom/ Grandma. Love them up!!! My prayers go to you and those kids….