AITA for telling my wife the lock on my daughter's door does not get removed til my brother inlaw and his daughters are out of our house?
After losing his home and starting over, Sammy sought refuge with his sister’s family, bringing his twin daughters into a new chapter filled with fragile beginnings. Yet beneath the surface of this blended household, respect and boundaries began to crumble, especially for Zoey, whose privacy was invaded and personal treasures violated by her cousins’ thoughtless actions.
The breaking point came when Zoey’s hard-earned $60 makeup set, a symbol of her patience and pride, was carelessly destroyed by Sloane. This wasn’t just about a ruined possession—it was a shattering blow to Zoey’s dignity, ignored by the adults who dismissed the behavior as mere teenage antics, leaving her feeling unheard and unprotected in her own home.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
As renowned family therapist and researcher Dr. Virginia Satir notes, "Feelments are facts." In this situation, the OP correctly recognized and acted upon the factual feeling of invasion and loss experienced by his daughter, Zoey, while his wife and brother-in-law invalidated those feelings by dismissing the actions as normal teenage behavior. The core issue here is a failure to establish clear boundaries within a shared living arrangement, complicated by misplaced loyalties. The OP's installation of the lock, while extreme, was a direct consequence of his perceived lack of support from his wife and the normalization of theft by his brother-in-law. Sammy’s deflection—criticizing Zoey's choice of expensive makeup rather than addressing his daughters' behavior—is a classic diversion tactic that shifts blame away from the offenders. Furthermore, the wife's demand to treat the nieces "like daughters" ignores the fundamental principle that rights, including privacy, must be respected regardless of familial relationship, especially when financial value and emotional security are involved. The OP's action of installing the lock was an understandable, albeit poorly communicated, attempt to enforce necessary boundaries when verbal requests failed. To handle this more effectively in the future, the OP and his wife needed to present a united front regarding house rules *before* the crisis escalated. Moving forward, a constructive recommendation involves immediately scheduling a mediated family meeting (perhaps with a neutral third party if necessary) to define strict, non-negotiable rules regarding personal property and access, which must apply equally to all children residing in the home, regardless of their temporary status.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.:
The thread exploded with reactions. Whether agreeing or disagreeing, everyone had something to say — and they said it loud.
The original poster (OP) is facing significant conflict because his protective actions for his daughter, Zoey, clash directly with his wife's and brother-in-law's (Sammy's) expectations regarding shared belongings and household rules. The OP prioritized enforcing boundaries to protect Zoey's property and emotional well-being, while the others minimized the cousins' behavior, viewing it as typical teenage interaction and accusing the OP of overreacting by installing a lock.
Is the OP justified in installing a lock on his daughter's room to prevent theft and invasion of privacy, even if it causes severe tension with his wife and in-laws, or is the boundary setting an excessive response that damages necessary family harmony?