Dad Wonders If He Is Wrong For Only Agreeing To Financially Support His Adult Children Who Have Kids
His daughter who has no children is not happy.
fizkes / Shutterstock A man on Reddit is asking if he is in the wrong for only continuing to financially support his children who have had kids.
He claims he has had an ongoing argument with his fourth daughter who believes this is favoritism.
“I have eight children, five daughters and three sons, and they've been the true lights of my life. I've paid for all of them to be properly educated, and all expenses up to their twenty-first birthdays” the post reads.
However, his second daughter got pregnant when she was nineteen.
Since then he had decided to financially support his children who had kids up until that said child’s 21st birthday.
“The amount I pay includes rent, food, tuition, and a modest monthly recreation fund. Since then, five of my children have started families, all early, and so I've continued to support them” he explained.
However, his fourth daughter and youngest son have not had children.
Although his youngest son has supposedly not complained to his father, his daughter Emma believes that he is trying to force her to have children that she doesn’t want.
He said, “She is married and considers her pets to be her children. However, her pets do not require tuition, or a recreation budget, or extra money to live in a child-friendly area.”
He believes since Emma has a two-income household and “very few responsibilities” she can take care of herself.
He ends the post by saying, “I do not believe I'm in the wrong here, but my youngest son has guided me here to get a less biased opinion. Well then, reddit, am I the a**hole?”
Most believe he is in the wrong.
The top comment under the post reads, “YTA you can't base support on if your kid has a kid or not. Either do them all or do none of them. Emma is right.”
Similarly, another comment read, “YTA. So you selectively help your children based on their willingness and ability to reproduce? You have been telling your youngest kids that their lives aren't important to you.”
The user continues, “They don't matter. Their futures don't matter. Their choices are invalid. Their ability to procreate is paramount.”
Several comments have also pointed out he is making his kids financially dependent on him.
For example one user said, “it's hardly a surprise all of his kids ended up being parents so young. op basically told them not to worry about growing up because he would take care of them.”
Another comment reads, “YTA for financially incentivizing your children to have children before they’re 21.”
They continued, “They would be far more stable financially if they waited, with or without your (temporarily extended) support, and making it conditional on doing something excruciatingly costly in the long run is counter to their best interests. I don’t even care if it’s favoritism or not; it’s just a foolish idea.”
Although it is great he is able to provide for five families, this could ultimately create a lot of animosity between the siblings if one receives less support.
What do you think?
Sydney Taylor is a writer who focuses on News and Entertainment topics.