A husband and father of two young children age two and under wrote he was under heavy financial strains due to student loans and was near to bankruptcy. He felt his rich mother should step in and help. Abby questioned if he’d talked to her and urged him to do so. If she said no, he should look for a second part-time job.
Abby’s answers can sometimes make me grumble, but this letter and answer made me curious. Should the rich mom whose lifestyle would not be changed “at all” help or pay the debt off? It was also indicated his wife’s parents who had little had stepped forward and done “everything within their power” to help.
There just isn’t enough information to about the real situation to bounce myself off the walls at either the mom or the son. Is it the son’s habit to go to Mom whenever he runs out of spending money? What style of life are he and his wife trying to maintain? Does he intend to pay it back or does he just want Mom’s life’s savings? Are the in-laws helpful lifesavers or aiders and abettors for their children’s dependency?
Why do Americans think they should have access to parental funds? How many of them who do get access still ignore their parents as much as possible? When it comes time for a nursing home how many of them visit their parents? Just wondering.
My situation is unique. My son has more money, way more money, than my husband and me. If parents are expected to always be interested in giving to their children as the letter implied, what about when it is reversed? Just wondering.
I believe that part of the son’s hurt though he doesn’t say so is a question about just how much his mother loves him. It would be easy to look at two children under two and vow to yourself that you will never let them down in such a sorry way. But let’s give that story thirty years to develop.