She knows Lou wouldn’t be aggressive, but she wants to respect her sister-in-law’s wishes since it’s her house. However, she found out she couldn’t hire her usual dog sitter for that day, and all the other people who have watched Lou will be at the party, so she gave her brother some options.
In order to attend the party, she told her brother she could bring Lou and keep her on a leash, take turns with their mom walking Lou outside during the party, or stop by for 15 minutes with Lou in the car to drop off his gift.
Unfortunately, she can’t only attend the party for a short amount of time, as the drive to her brother’s house is 45 minutes alone.
“He told me that he didn’t like any of these options because his wife didn’t want my ‘aggressive dog’ on their property, in their driveway, or in their neighborhood in general,” she recalled.
“I apologized and told him if that was the case, I wouldn’t be able to come at all.”
Her brother was very disappointed to hear she couldn’t go to his party. Her sister-in-law reacted more intensely and started bombarding her with angry texts.
She called her names and said she was selfish for prioritizing her dog over her brother.
Although she’d feel terrible for missing her brother’s milestone birthday, she thought she offered generous compromises and refused to leave her dog alone at home.
Is she being selfish, or is her sister-in-law being unreasonable?
You can read the original post on Reddit here.
If true crime defines your free time, this is for you: join Chip Chick’s True Crime Tribe