Child care is expensive. When a friend or family member offers to watch your children for free when you need it, you seize the chance. OP is the uncle who gets the job of watching the kids. In addition to being 37 years old, single, and childless, he also owns two German Shepherd dogs that his children adore (nieces and nephews.) OP babysits a lot because he has four sisters, and those four sisters together have 10 kids. He has volunteered to watch the elder kids when his sisters need him to do so because he works from home.
He also looks after the younger children, but it is more difficult because it requires him to adjust his routine. With the elder children, less supervision is required, allowing OP to work quietly while taking care of his little ones. One rule applies in the home of the OP: no chocolate. For his siblings, who are between the ages of three and eight, an afternoon without chocolate shouldn’t be too challenging because it can be fatal for dogs. Four of the kids spent the day at OP’s house as a result. The kids were playing in the living room, OP’s dogs were on the balcony, and he was in the kitchen preparing beverages for them.
They claimed that their mother had packed it for them and that whenever they visit OP, they always bring chocolates. Although they typically consume the chocolate covertly, they have escaped detection. OP told them what had happened when their mother arrived to fetch them up. She became defensive and claimed that her children were of an age where they wouldn’t leave chocolate crumbs behind. OP claimed that as a result of the incident, he will no longer be accessible to watch his sister’s children. OP’s sister yelled at him for overreacting and was upset. His other sister is also supporting the sister of the OP. Their mother also thinks that the OP is a jerk for prioritizing his pets over his nieces and nephews.
Was OP wrong for refusing to babysit for his sister after the chocolate incident? You can read the full story below:
The story starts…
The no-chocolate rule
OP saw chocolate crumbs in the living room
Sister is furious now
Free babysitter whenever you want, provided that you follow this one straightforward requirement. Why would you blunder that?
Only one of his four sisters could not follow OP’s one sensible rule.
Not the OP’s concern for the safety of his dogs, but that is the priority that should be questioned.
She involved her children in the fabrication, and they betrayed the OP. She now has to deal with the repercussions.
You see, OP even instructed the children on how to properly feed the pets. similar to what a mature adult would do.
Even while they might not pass away right away, youngsters could mistakenly give them too much chocolate.
What if one of the sister’s children had a serious food allergy, and the OP consumed that item in her company despite being fully aware of the potential harm it could cause? Would they also grant OP a free pass to wilfully break that regulation?
Most likely not. They’re only upset about this to see how far they can push OP’s boundaries; he already provides free babysitting, so why not give the kids free rein in his home? They now have a solution.
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings